House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
Cutting waiting lists is one of the Prime Minister’s top priorities. We are spending more than £8 billion on additional elective activity and investing in additional capacity including community diagnostics centres, one such centre being in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Since September 2023 overall waiting lists have fallen by almost 200,000—the biggest five-month fall in over 10 years, outside of the pandemic.
Richard Burgon
NHS waiting lists have risen threefold since the Tories came to power, and the Prime Minister’s pledge to cut waiting lists is in tatters. Rather than taking responsibility, the Tories first blamed NHS staff who were trying to get better pay, and now they have opened up a new round of media attacks on the sick and the disabled. Why do not the Government instead go after the tax dodgers, as Labour plans to do, to raise funds and help resolve the crisis in our NHS?
Andrew Stephenson
Once again the hon. Gentleman does not condemn the strikes. I would gently say that while we are getting waiting lists down in England, Welsh Labour has the longest hospital waits in Great Britain, putting patients at risk because it does not have a plan to clear the backlog. In December 2023 the Welsh Labour Government had the highest number of patients in Great Britain waiting over two years for treatments. It is an outrage; yet that is the blueprint for what the Labour party says it will implement here in England.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I see increasing numbers of women coming to my constituency surgeries about chronic urinary tract infections, not for themselves but for their daughters. Unfortunately there seems to be no treatment pathway for chronic UTIs among girls. Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts about that, and would he agree to meet me to discuss the issue further?
Andrew Stephenson
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
Westminster is awash with rumours that the Prime Minister will call a July general election, presumably to avoid giving his Rwanda gimmick the time to fail. I have a very simple question for the Minister: will he repeat the pledge that the Prime Minister made last year and promise that NHS waiting lists will be lower at the time of the general election than when the Prime Minister came to office?
Andrew Stephenson
The Prime Minister has been very clear that getting waiting lists down is one of his top priorities, but he has also been clear that performance has been disappointing. One reason is that 1.4 million procedures have had to be rescheduled because of industrial action. I would gently ask the shadow Secretary of State whether he condemns those strikes.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
The General Medical Council has been constituted by Parliament to ensure that decisions about individual doctors are independent of both the profession and the Government of the day. The Professional Standards Authority oversees the work of all United Kingdom professional regulators and reports to Parliament on their operational performance. Parliament continues to set and oversee the principles and scope of the regulators’ powers.
Anthony Mangnall
Good governance means ensuring transparency, and one concern of my constituents is whether GMC decisions can be appealed. Will the Minister reassure me that we can have better transparency in the GMC on the decisions that it makes?
Andrew Stephenson
The GMC and other professional regulators have a statutory duty to investigate any concerns about the fitness to practice of one of their registrants and to take appropriate action to protect the public when that is needed. The regulators are overseen by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, which has the power to appeal cases where, in its view, a sanction imposed by a regulator is insufficient to protect the public.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The GMC has seven principles of decision making and consent. How will the Minister ensure that GPs can fulfil their obligations when time constraints on appointments mean that they do not have time to listen to every complaint? People have to book a double appointment to talk about more than one issue. What further support can the Government give GPs to enable them to fulfil their GMC-ordered standards of care?
Andrew Stephenson
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have committed to delivering 50 million more GP appointments and to making it easier throughout the country to see a doctor. In England in December, we delivered 25.77 million GP appointments compared with 23.31 million in December 2019—an increase of 2.46 million appointments each month. We need to continue to work with programmes such as Pharmacy First, and we are taking other steps to reduce the pressure on GPs so that they have more time to spend with their patients.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
General practitioners are a rock. They are the underpinning force of primary care. I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to them for all they do for the health of the nation. My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of GP retention. During covid and since, GPs have been exhausted and the return to primary care provision has been difficult. The Government are doing a lot, such as improving digital telephony and reducing the administrative workload. I am about to launch a future of general practice taskforce to look at what more we can do to provide more support to this critical part of our primary care.
Vicky Ford
Chelmsford is a growing city, and it is very good that, compared with pre-covid times, we have more clinicians in our GP surgeries, but we need more surgeries as well. One new surgery is being built. I have been told that the limits that local district valuers impose on NHS lease costs make it increasingly difficult for developers to deliver new surgery buildings, not only in Chelmsford, but in other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other affected MPs to see whether we can resolve that issue and help growing areas, where there are more houses, to deliver the new surgeries that we need?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Of course I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that issue, which several colleagues across the House have raised with me. She will appreciate that the District Valuer Services is crucial in ensuring value for taxpayer’s money from the rents that are charged for GP practices. Nevertheless, the Department is working hard to support better primary care facilities. I understand the point and would be happy to meet her.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
There are 56 fewer fully qualified GPs in Somerset now than there were in December 2016, so it is no surprise that my constituents in Wincanton feel that they can never access one. How will the Minister support general practice to enable it to continue to provide the vital services that our communities deserve?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
It is fantastic that hard-working GPs have delivered 60 million more appointments a year than in 2019. That is a credit to their efforts. The Government have undertaken a wide range of approaches to try to reduce the administrative burden. We are focused on trying to deal with some of the issues that GPs have raised with me about the primary and secondary care interface so that they do not have to write all the fit notes and liaise with consultants. We have also spent more than £200 million on digital telephony. Importantly, the additional roles reimbursement scheme has added more than 36,000 more professional staff, from physios to pharmacists to those in GP practices, to try to support patient access.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
At the last general election, the Government promised to deliver 6,000 more GPs by 2024-25, but there are still 2,000 fewer GPs than in 2015. Part of the problem is that morale has plummeted in the past decade, meaning that experienced family doctors and newly qualified GPs are hanging up their stethoscopes. What does the Minister say after scrapping two GP retention schemes last month? Will she come clean today about another broken manifesto promise?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is choosing numbers out of the air. She will be aware that there are almost 3,000 more GPs now than in 2019, and very importantly the long-term workforce plan is scheduled to introduce 6,000 new training places by 2031-32. In 2022, we had the greatest number ever of new trainee GPs. That is great news for GP practice, as they are crucial to primary care.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
May I wish you a happy St. George’s day, Mr Speaker? I also wish the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) a speedy recovery; I hope to see her across the Dispatch Box soon.
The Government have invested significant sums to maintain and modernise NHS buildings, including £4.2 billion for integrated care boards this financial year. This is on top of the expected £20 billion for the new hospital programme. We have invested a further £1.7 billion for over 70 hospital upgrades across England, including in mid and south Essex.
Anna Firth
I thank the Secretary of State very much for the Government’s commitment to delivering the £110 million in capital funding for south Essex hospitals and for her recent visit to Southend hospital, where she saw in our emergency village how much £8 million can do in the hands of Southend hospital’s inspirational NHS staff. However, our aged buildings do also need urgent maintenance, so what can she also do to deliver the £38 million in maintenance funding also needed for Southend hospital?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, and also wish her the very best of luck, as she is due to abseil down the hospital next month for its radiotherapy appeal. I very much hope she lands safely and does not trouble Southend hospital. I was delighted to visit the hospital at her invitation earlier this month, and I was very much impressed by the immediate improvements that the £8 million funding has meant in the Dowsett ward and for discharge and treatment times through accident and emergency. This is part of our plan, both through the urgent and emergency care plan and through our recovery plan for electives and the new hospital programme, to rebuild hospitals and provide that investment so that clinicians can use it to treat their local patients.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Last month, I met the chief executive of Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport. She informed me that the primary out-patient building, which provides 85% of out-patient capacity, was recently condemned. While funding has been secured to build two additional wards, they will not be ready for at least 15 months, causing huge disruption in the interim. Fourteen years of underinvestment has left Stepping Hill Hospital quite literally crumbling. Will the Government provide urgent capital investment for Stepping Hill, so that my constituents and our brilliant NHS staff can have the facilities they need?
Victoria Atkins
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken to his integrated care board, because he will know that responsibility for local investment decisions rightly rests at local level. I can say that, as a Government, we have very much invested in hospital upgrades, including £4.2 billion going to integrated care boards this financial year. I hear the timetable he cites, but I encourage him to go to his integrated care board to ask what more it is doing.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform UK)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is vital that people have access to the medicines they need. The Department has been working with the suppliers of medicines used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes to seek commitments from them to address the issues, expedite deliveries and boost supplies. As a result, the position is now much improved compared with a few months ago, with new patients now able to receive these critical medicines. We continue to work with industry to address remaining issues as quickly as possible.
Lee Anderson
We know that obesity in this country is costing the NHS about £20 billion a year, and it is a major contributory factor to type 2 diabetes, which is preventable in a lot of cases by having a healthy lifestyle. What more can we do encourage people to eat healthily and therefore save costs in the NHS?
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Member raises a very important point. Obesity is linked to many health conditions, including type 2 diabetes. We are delivering an ambitious programme of work to create a healthy environment to support people in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. This includes restricting the placements of less healthy products in shops and online, calorie labelling on food sold in restaurants and a tax on the sugary drinks industry, which has removed the equivalent of 45,000 tonnes of sugar from soft drinks.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
A recent Nuffield Trust report shows that medicine shortages are a new normal in the UK. The Minister might claim that this is a global issue, but as the report highlights, shortages are being made worse by Brexit. For example, the creation of a requirement for customs checks at the border and leaving the European Medicines Agency have disrupted the previously smooth supply of medicines. What urgent action will the Minister take to help to tackle the disastrous effects of Brexit on UK medicine supplies?
Andrew Stephenson
The SNP, as usual, is a broken record. We all know that diabetes medicine shortages are a global issue affecting countries not just across the whole of the European Union, but across the whole world. Medicine supply chains are highly regulated, complex and global. Issues can occur for multiple reasons, including manufacturing difficulties, regulatory non-compliance, surges in demand, availability of raw materials, sudden spikes in demand, and issues related to the distribution of the product. But once again, as always, the grievance culture of the SNP is: blame everything on Brexit.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
We hugely appreciate the work that general practice nurses do. I know that the hon. Lady was a nurse in her previous life, and I absolutely pay tribute to her for her service. She will be aware that last year the Government provided additional funding for the general practice contract to uplift pay by 6%, in line with the pay review body’s recommendations. We are very much aware of the need to try to ensure that general practice nurses feel appreciated and are keen to be retained in GP practices, which is one of the reasons I have launched a taskforce on the future of general practice. As she will know, it is for GP practices themselves to determine the pay uplift for their nurses. I am looking closely at that, because we know that sometimes the pay rise provided by the Government was not passed on.
Mrs Hamilton
We have all seen images of people queuing around the block for an appointment at their GP surgery, and in my local integrated care board, there has been a decline in general practice nurses since June 2020. It currently takes 12 months to train nurses wishing to move into general practice. Will the Minister tell me and my constituents in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale what she is doing to ensure that the retention of experienced nurses and the training of new nurses does not add to the pressure that GPs are already facing?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The long-term workforce plan commits to increasing the number of general practice nurses by more than 5,000 by 2036-37. In her area, the number of doctors in general practice in the NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB increased by 134 full-time equivalents between 2019 and 2023, but the number of nurses decreased slightly, by 34 full-time equivalents. However, over the same period, direct patient care staff increased by 1,195 full-time equivalents. I think that demonstrates to the hon. Lady that the actual resources in GP practice are increasing, with specialisms such as physiotherapy and pharmacy, as well as nurse prescribers, to provide patients more access to good healthcare.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
As the hon. Member may know, in September 2023, we met our commitment to deliver 50,000 more nurses working in the NHS compared with September 2019. As of January 2024, there are over 68,800 full-time equivalent community nurses working in NHS trusts and other core organisations across England, which is over 2,000 more than a year ago. However, we want to go further, which is why the NHS long-term workforce plan sets an ambition to increase training places for district nurses by 150%, to nearly 1,800. It also commits to improving retention in the NHS.
Kenny MacAskill
In Scotland, the vacancy rate for registered nursing posts in the community is 8.5%, and for registered district nurses it is 6.6%—in England, the situation is actually worse in most parts. However, these posts are fundamental, not just to care in communities and to our communities themselves, but to addressing bed blocking. It is obviously for the Scottish Government to address terms and conditions of employment, but their overall funding package is dictated by the block grant and Barnett consequentials. Is it not time that the Department stood up for the NHS? When there is money for weapons abroad, why can we not provide care at home? We were told during the referendum that we would be better together and that the NHS would be protected. Instead, it is being undermined.
Andrew Stephenson
We hear from Opposition Members who love nothing more than to crow and criticise as their health system declines around them, despite record funding from the UK Government. Scotland has, sadly, some of the worst health outcomes in the western world. Earlier this year, when the UK Government stepped in to offer support, the SNP Health Minister rejected the offer. I reiterate that if the Scottish Government need help to reduce their waiting lists, we stand ready to provide such support.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
We are committed to levelling up health, narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030, and increasing healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. That aligns with our mission to reform our health and care system to be faster, simpler and fairer.
Debbie Abrahams
In January, Professor Sir Michael Marmot published “Health Inequalities, Lives Cut Short”, which confirmed that between 2011 and 2019, driven by political choices, 1 million people in 90% of areas in England lived shorter lives than they should. The inequalities were amplified by Covid. These lives cut short are matched by shorter lives in good health. Does the Secretary of State believe in evidence-based health? If so, does she accept the overwhelming evidence that current levels of ill health reflect 14 years of escalating poverty, services that have been run into the ground, including the NHS, and the Government’s failure to do what they promised in 2019: level up?
Victoria Atkins
No, I do not, and I would point to the legislation that the Government brought forward last week, which is the largest and most significant public health reform that we can make to help the hon. Member’s constituents and those in other parts of the country who face inequalities. We know that smoking rates are disproportionately higher in poorer communities, which is one of the many reasons why we introduced such landmark legislation. It is just a shame that the Labour party felt that they had to whip their Members to get them to vote for it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State support Breast Cancer Now’s campaign to improve the uptake of breast cancer screening, especially among women in minority ethnic communities, because that is a good way to tackle health inequalities?
Victoria Atkins
I completely agree. Further on ethnicity and inequalities, I have not only prioritised women’s health as Secretary of State, but announced £50 million of research into maternity disparities for women of colour, given the worrying statistics associated with that. I have also responded to calls from brave constituents, put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for further research into lobular breast cancer, because although it is responsible for 15% of diagnoses, we do not have the research or evidence to help women who are affected by it.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that someone living in the inner city in the Bradford district is likely to live 20 years less than those living in the more affluent parts of the region. That has not just happened; it is a result of 14 years of underinvestment in and cuts to not only our NHS, but our community services. Will the Secretary of State just admit that the Government frankly could not care less about people from places such as Bradford, because otherwise they would have accepted my levelling-up bid, which would have addressed this injustice at its core?
Victoria Atkins
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned levelling up, because presumably he will know from his bid that the 12 levelling-up missions are mutually reinforcing. Conservative Members take the approach that in order to help people with their health—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is shouting at me. I thought that this answer would be important to his constituents.
Levelling up is not just about health. It is about the impact of education, housing and other matters in our environment, which is why in the forthcoming major conditions strategy we will tie together the conditions that have the most impact on a healthy life. We will draw together a cross-Government strategy to help people who are living with those conditions to live longer but also healthier lives.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Health Secretary will know about the health inequalities across the east of England, including in Maldon district, which will only be made worse if the NHS’s plans to close St Peter’s Hospital in Maldon proceed. Does she agree that the levelling-up funding that has been made available to Maldon District Council should be prioritised to facilitate investment in new localised health services, so that those inequalities can be tackled?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The purpose of the levelling-up fund is to help local areas to address what they need locally, rather than respond to diktat from central London. I encourage her to work closely, as I know she will, with local agencies, the council and others making those important decisions, so that their levelling-up announcements include health, as an integral part of her mission to improve the lives of her constituents.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Back in the real world, the record of the last Labour Government is that we increased life expectancy by three years. Under this Government, it has stalled for the first time in a century, with people in Blackpool, for example, expected to live four and a half years less than the national average. Is the Secretary of State proud of this shocking record, or will people have to wait to elect Chris Webb in Blackpool South and a Labour Government at Westminster to finally turn the tide on health inequalities?
Victoria Atkins
As someone who is proud to have gone to school in Blackpool, I do not need a lecture from the hon. Gentleman about what Labour has done to the town centre, or about the important work that Conservatives in Lancashire are doing to help communities such as Blackpool. On Labour’s record, I gently point out, as I try to do at every orals, that the record of the Labour-run NHS in Wales is lamentable. People are almost twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Labour-run NHS in Wales. That is not a record of which to be proud.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It is vital that people with spinal injuries receive care in the most appropriate environment to support their care and rehabilitation. The NHS has developed a range of guidance on the subject, including NHS England’s excellent incontinence care guidance. In addition, guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence set out the care that patients with spinal injuries should receive, including through a neurological bowel management programme.
Gill Furniss
There is a clear need for a national policy on bowel care in NHS settings for people with spinal injuries. I have listened to patients who have been left feeling abandoned and trapped in a hospital bed without the basic dignity of being able to use the toilet—all because of a lack of training for nurses in providing the necessary support. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Spinal Injuries Association to discuss how we can make the situation better and ensure that nobody is denied this basic level of care?
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she and the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury have done on the issue. I would be more than happy to meet them.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
Just over a year ago, we set out a plan to improve urgent and emergency care. The plan is working. At East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, 78% of A&E patients in March were seen within four hours. That is 4.5 percentage points better than last year—the biggest year-on-year improvement outside the pandemic since 2010. We know that there is more to do; that is why we are working with the NHS on year 2 of the urgent and emergency care recovery plan.
Antony Higginbotham
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and grateful to her for agreeing to meet me and other local MPs to discuss the emergency care situation in east Lancashire. Could I ask her to go one step further? Perhaps she and even the Secretary of State could visit Burnley General Teaching Hospital in my constituency, meet the trust, and see what more we can do there, partly to reverse the disastrous decision of the last Labour Government to close the A&E there?
Helen Whately
I commend my hon. Friend and other east Lancashire colleagues for their campaigning on this matter. I look forward to the meeting we are going to have to discuss the performance of his local A&E, and I thank him very much for the invitation to visit.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I share an integrated care board with the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) in Lancashire and South Cumbria. Does the Minister agree that one reason why there are such problems with A&E waiting times is the congestion in our hospitals overall, because of the number of people who are healthy and fit to leave hospital, but cannot have a health and care plan when they return home? Some 24% of all beds in the Morecambe Bay hospitals are occupied by people who are fit to leave, but have no care package. What plan does the Minister have to address the social care crisis in Cumbria? That will include increasing the amount of affordable housing, so that people can afford to live in the area; paying carers more; and having more intelligent visa rules.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the performance of A&E depends on the flow of patients through hospital and our ability to discharge them. That is why, as part of our work on urgent and emergency care, we have invested in supporting hospitals to discharge patients, and have been supporting social care. We have seen an increased number of discharges across the country over the last year, which has enabled hospitals to treat more people and supported the improved performance in A&E that I mentioned. We continue to work on that, and of course we are supporting social care with up to £8.6 extra billion funding over two years.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Every day, NHS staff do an extraordinary job for their patients, and it is vital that the NHS supports them in maintaining their mental health. The long-term workforce plan commits the NHS to supporting staff health and wellbeing and asks integrated care systems to develop plans to support them. I am pleased that NHS England is reviewing mental health services for all staff, to ensure that all staff in the NHS have the support that they need.
Dr Allin-Khan
Fighting to save a dying child’s life, telling families that their loved one will not make it through the night, and working desperately in substandard conditions—it will come as little shock to hear that all that takes a toll. Last year, 6.4 million mental health sick days were taken across the NHS. Instead of receiving support, our NHS heroes have a Tory Government who treat them with disdain and kick them to the kerb. Will the Minister commit to funding the NHS practitioner health service beyond the next 12 months, or will the Government just try to shut it down again?
Andrew Stephenson
As an NHS community first responder who served on the frontline during the pandemic, who had to see people say goodbye to their loved ones for the last time before being admitted to hospital, and who has dealt with cardiac arrests, I know the mental toll that working for or volunteering with the NHS can take on our workforce, and therefore we do give a very high priority to the subject. The NHS people plan sets out a range of actions to build a more modern, compassionate and inclusive culture, and includes a much stronger focus on the availability of quality health and wellbeing support. It is right that we keep services under review, so I will not make a commitment today to continuing to fund something that we have agreed to fund for another year while those services are reviewed.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
We are focused on delivering our women’s health priorities for 2024. Recent successes include new women’s health hubs opening across the country, with £25 million of investment; the investment of nearly £35 million over three years in improving maternity safety, on top of the extra £186 million already being invested each year; the success of the hormone replacement therapy prepayment certificates; and research into the important issue of maternity disparities, which I have already mentioned.
Lilian Greenwood
House of Commons Library figures reveal that one in four women with suspected breast cancer are waiting more than two weeks to see a specialist. The waiting list for gynaecological treatments has risen by 40,000 in a year, which means that there are now almost 600,000 women waiting, which is up by a third over two years. Labour has pledged to tackle that backlog, so that more women are seen faster. How much pain, misery or worse do women have to endure before this Government start prioritising their health?
Victoria Atkins
As the hon. Lady will know—she saw the statistics published very recently—we are in fact treating more people at earlier stages of their cancer. I want to take on her point about gynaecological waits, because that is important. We are spending more than £8 billion in this spending review period on additional elective activity, and investing in additional capacity, including community diagnostic centres and surgical hubs, many of which provide gynaecological tests and procedures. She may have missed it, but the latest published management information for March shows that the longest waits for gynaecology services have reduced by nearly 95% since their peak in September 2021. Of course there is more to do, but we are making progress. I thank all the doctors and teams who are involved in that important work.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, we have seen alarming figures pointing to the systematic de-prioritisation of women’s health, with 600,000 women in England waiting for gynaecological treatment, 33,000 women waiting more than a year, and under two thirds of eligible women screened for breast cancer in the last three years. Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that under this Government, women’s health has become an afterthought?
Victoria Atkins
That is absolute nonsense. As I say, I have prioritised women’s health. I am pretty sure that I invited the hon. Lady to the women’s health summit earlier this year.
Victoria Atkins
She is very graciously saying that I did. The point is that I want women to receive the sort of care that we would all hope and expect them to have. I have prioritised that precisely because there are conditions, including gynaecological conditions, that have historically not received the attention they deserve. As our women’s health ambassador Dame Lesley Regan says, the NHS was created by men, for men. I am the Health Secretary who is sorting that out.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
We are enormously grateful for the work of GPs in delivering 64 million more appointments nationally than in 2019. Our primary care recovery plan enhances GP access by expanding community pharmacy services nationwide. Some 98% of community pharmacies have signed up to the Pharmacy First offer, with over 125,000 consultations claimed in the first month.
Alistair Strathern
Across Bedfordshire, we suffer from patient to GP ratios that are well in excess of the national average; high housing growth is simply not matched by GP capacity. At Wixams, we have been able to break through 15 years of deadlock by putting stakeholders together, but issues still remain across the county. From Shefford to Stondon, heartbreaking stories are commonplace. The issue is not ICB-specific; it affects people right across the country. What more can we do to ensure that areas with high housing growth have the GP capacity that residents deserve?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. He may be aware that the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB received £36 million for its operational capital budget in 2023-24, with over £118 million for this spending review period. That operational capital is core funding provided to ICBs for delivering primary care, among other things. In addition, he will be aware that ICBs are able to provide input to planning permissions to ensure that primary care is delivered where there are new housing developments. I have worked with other hon. Members across the House to tackle this issue, and I am very happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Kerry McCarthy
When I speak to my constituents in Brislington, they tell me they have to wait an inordinate time to get through on the phone to their GPs at the Brooklea health centre, and wait over two weeks for appointments. Constituents in Fishponds have been told that it is over an hour’s wait for prescription medication at the local pharmacy—and we all know the situation with dentists. The other thing my constituents are waiting for is a general election. Does the Minister agree that that is the only way we will sort out these problems in the NHS?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I certainly do not agree. If Labour were in government, we would see significantly worse outcomes. Covid was a once-in-100-years pandemic, and we have pulled out all the stops to recover from that. It is a huge tribute to all those working in primary care that they have done so well. In the hon. Lady’s ICB— Bristol North, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire —38.4% of all appointments were delivered on the same day they were booked in February this year, and 84% were delivered within two weeks of booking, with 66% of them face to face. These are extremely positive numbers for the 482,000 appointments delivered in February 2024. What is really important is that the number of patient care staff has increased by 656 full-time equivalents since 2019.
Rachel Hopkins
I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the number of patients per GP in the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes area is nearly 25% higher than the national average. Will the Minister explain why her Government think it is a good idea to cut the proportion of doctors being trained as GPs from around one in three to around one in four?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is simply wrong. She will be aware that, in fact, our long-term workforce plan is intended to raise the number of training places for GPs to 6,000 by 2031-32. In 2022, we had over 4,000 new GPs apply to take training places—an absolute record. There is much more to do, and I am working with GPs on a future for GP practice taskforce to make sure that we do everything we can, including hiring the 36,000 additional professionals now working in GP practices, in order to relieve the pressure on GPs and deliver much better patient access.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Last week, a constituent contacted me to say that her teeth crumbled during pregnancy and she was unable to get a dentist appointment. Another constituent, who was in agony, desperately pleaded for help to find a dentist. My own son, Clifford, has been waiting two years for a tooth extraction, and I have received hundreds of emails about similar issues. It is simply not good enough. What plans do the Government have to sort this out once and for all, and what advice does the Minister have for my constituents?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We know that because all dentists were locked down during covid, the recovery in access to NHS care has not been as fast as we would like. That is why we announced our dentistry recovery plan, including a new patient premium, which, since it was launched on 1 March, has already seen hundreds of thousands of new NHS patients who have not seen a dentist in two years. Some 240 dentists will receive golden hellos to encourage them to work in underserved areas. We also have our new Smile for Life prevention programme, which will ensure that babies receive an early dental check for their milk teeth in family hubs, and that pregnant mums receive better dental care and advice. We are now trying to work with dentists to look at reform of the units of dental activity contract, but following the first meeting of the group yesterday, it seems that dentists feel that all the parameters are in place. What we now need to do is ensure that the incentives are there and that we see things changing rapidly.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My GPs are working extraordinarily hard to increase access in the face of ever increasing public demand. I am alarmed by the Labour party’s talk about scrapping the GP partnership model, as I find in the Stroud district that GP practices are some of the most efficient parts of our NHS services. They need support, the removal of bureaucracy and the opening up of funding pots, rather than dismantling. Will my right hon. Friend explain how access to primary care would not be helped by removing the partnership model, and what are the Government doing to help ICBs create more flexible partnership funding pots?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and I say again that GPs absolutely underpin our primary care. We all absolutely rely on them, and our measures to create 36,000 additional roles in GP practices will provide them with the additional capacity they need so that they can serve their patients better. That is good for patients, good for primary care and incredibly good value for the taxpayer. It is ludicrous that Labour is proposing to undermine the GP partnership model; that would be a disaster for primary care.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
We know that people in work lead happier, healthier lives. However, over 10 million “not fit for work” fit notes were issued last year. Most were repeat fit notes issued without any advice, so we are missing a golden opportunity to give millions of people the support they need to remain in work. That is why we are launching a reform of the fit note process to create a new system in which fit note conversations focus on what people can do, not what they cannot do. As part of this, the Government will consider shifting the responsibility for issuing fit notes away from GPs to reduce the pressures they face and to free up millions of appointments. I thank everyone who has delivered this vital work, and I very much look forward to hearing the results of the call for evidence in due course so that we can reform our welfare system for the sake of our constituents and our GPs.
Mark Eastwood
According to the Association of British HealthTech Industries, it takes, on average, 17 years for lifesaving and life-enhancing technologies to be adopted in the NHS. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up the adoption of new technologies so that the NHS can save more lives and improve patient outcomes?
Victoria Atkins
I dispute the 17-year figure, as it can vary across innovations. The figure is contested, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. We have a plan to prioritise the acceleration of patient access, thereby ensuring safe, effective and innovative medical technology for patients and the NHS. Our ambition is backed by funding, and we are reforming the medical technology regulatory framework, introducing the innovative devices access pathway pilot and launching frameworks to increase the availability of innovative products for the sake of patients across England and the United Kingdom.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Health Secretary has promised that the Government will provide an extra 2.5 million dental appointments this year, but the dentistry Minister, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), says the figure has
“a high likelihood of not being reliable”.
Which one of them is wrong?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have modelled down the ambitions, so the figure we initially provided was higher than 2.5 million appointments. That is because we are focused on delivering the dental recovery plan, rather than overpromising.
The hon. Gentleman finds it easy to call our children short and fat, but he shies away from welfare reform, calling it shameless and irresponsible. He says he is ready to stand up to middle-class lefties, but Labour has never put patients first by condemning the unions that strike. He makes glossy promises about reforming the NHS in England, yet Labour has failed completely—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say that we need to get a lot of Back Benchers in, and I am sure both sides want to do that.
Wes Streeting
The last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history, which is a record that the right hon. Lady’s Government cannot begin to touch.
Back to dentistry, the chief dental officer says the announcement is “nowhere near enough.” The British Dental Association says:
“This ‘Recovery Plan’ is not worthy of the title.”
It also says that the recovery plan will not stop the “exodus” of dentists and will not meet the Government’s targets. Who should the public trust, and why should they trust the Health Secretary to deliver when her own adviser, her own Minister and, crucially, dentists all say that she is brushing the truth under the carpet?
Victoria Atkins
Again, let us bring ourselves back up to date. I know the Labour party likes looking back to the last time it found favour with the British public, but Wales is the up-to-date record of today. Labour’s lamentable record of running the NHS in Wales speaks for itself. If the hon. Gentleman is so set on reform, why on earth is he not helping his Labour colleagues in Wales to do exactly as he is promising? It is because they are empty promises, and because the hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, the Labour party will step back from reform rather than grappling with the issues, as we are doing with our recovery plan.
Finally, on the dental recovery plan, within a month of the new patient premium being switched on, hundreds of surgeries have opened to new patients, which means that patients in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere are getting the care they need.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I understand that a consultation was conducted locally and that more than 5,000 local people and staff responded. Their feedback will be analysed by an independent research agency, which will produce a report for the Mid and South Essex ICB, and a meeting is due to take place in public in July. I will, of course, continue to take an interest in this matter.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The recent announcements on fit note reform are just the latest in a long string of attacks on the most vulnerable people in society. Sick and disabled people are being vilified, when, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation points out, almost two thirds of those living in destitution live with a chronic health condition or a disability. The UK Government are continuing their track record in failing, and making life more difficult for, disabled people. Does the Secretary of State understand how much more difficult these changes will make people’s lives?
Victoria Atkins
These reforms are being brought forward because of a simply unsustainable rise in the number of people being given fit notes so that they cannot re-enter the world of work. We want to support people into work, not only because we believe that it is the best way to help them to recover, but because it helps us to fund the NHS. It is funded by people who work and pay their taxes. Again, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to matters a little closer to home; sadly, Scotland’s record on health is very difficult to read and it includes the worst level of drug deaths in Europe. I encourage her to concentrate on how the SNP is running health services in its local area.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
That is an important point. We know how vital it is to support everyone who is working so hard in our NHS to support patients. NHS England is reviewing mental health services for all staff who need them, to ensure that they can access the support they need. It is working collaboratively with regions and integrated care systems to agree the best approach to doing that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As part of the NHS long-term plan, we have an ambition to diagnose 75% of all stageable cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. That means that we need to make significant improvements on the harder-to-detect cancers such as bowel cancer. We are working across systems to deliver those improvements, not only with better screening programmes, but by improving patient pathways. However, I am more than happy to meet her if she wants to have a further conversation specifically about bowel cancer.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Following discussions with constituents who are living with Parkinson’s and with Parkinson’s UK, I am concerned that North Yorkshire has only one dedicated Parkinson’s nurse. Given the complexity of the condition, what steps are being taken further to incentivise nurses to specialise in Parkinson’s and on long-term delivery?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know the huge value of Parkinson’s nurses to local patients in my constituency. Under the NHS long-term workforce plan, backed by more than £2.4 billion over the next five years, the NHS will focus on expanding the number of clinicians training for enhanced and advanced roles working as part of multidisciplinary teams with the right skills to meet the changing needs of patients.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
We switched on our fully funded dental recovery plan, in case the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully earlier, on 1 March. Nearly 500 more practices in England are accepting new adult patients than at the end of January, and even more will do so under the dental recovery plan. We have plans to bring in new dental vans to help our most isolated communities. We are also bringing in the Smile4Life programme for children, because prevention must be a critical part of our dental recovery plan.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Ministers will be aware of a rather boastful claim last weekend by the makers of Elfbar and Lost Mary vapes. They have already launched rechargeable, refillable products, which, with a coil in each pod, are not by definition single-use or disposable according to the published regulations. Can the Minister reassure the House and parents that they are alive to that and will pivot as necessary now that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is going into Committee?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which shows the cynicism with which the tobacco and vaping industry is approaching these landmark public health reforms. On vapes, we have committed to consulting on the powers that we are adopting in the Bill precisely because we want to ensure that the regulations, when they come to the fore, address the realities of the market and the cynicism of the companies behind it, and help to ensure that our children do not continue being plied with these horrible items to get them hooked on nicotine.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform UK)
Victoria Atkins
This is a very serious matter, which I have raised with the chief executive of NHS England, and asked her to raise with the regional director and Nottinghamshire integrated care board. We have done so because we believe that it might be a breach of the Nolan principles.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Just yesterday, the Office for National Statistics released data showing that alcohol-specific deaths in 2022 were 4.2% higher than in 2021 and a massive 32.8% higher than in 2019. Will my right hon. Friend now seriously consider a stand-alone alcohol strategy based on this worrying trend and agree to meet me and other interested parties to discuss a way forward to tackle alcohol-specific deaths?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
My hon. Friend was an incredibly hard-working health Minister and I pay tribute to her for all she did in this area. She will be aware that our groundbreaking drug and alcohol strategy commits more than half a billion pounds of new funding over the spending review period to rebuild drug and alcohol treatment services, with plans to get an additional 15,000 alcohol-dependent people into substance misuse treatment by 2024-25, which we are currently on track to achieve. I would be delighted to meet her to talk about it further.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
At my last surgery, a young woman told me that, thanks to the delay in her GP diagnosing her ovarian cancer, she is now infertile and receiving aggressive treatment. She had made four GP appointments over several months for her unexplained stomach cramps. Only in an emergency admission in another country was the ovarian cancer diagnosed and the tumour removed. How long will it be before the symptoms of female-specific conditions are taken seriously by our medical establishment, from initial training onwards?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this, and I very much send our best wishes to her constituent. The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The symptoms that women can experience are often very different for conditions relating not just to cancer, but to heart attacks, for example. Part of my prioritisation of women’s health is to get that message out to clinicians so that, as this case demonstrates so tragically, they are able to make the best and most prompt diagnosis for all women.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the UK Health Security Agency has the budget and the capabilities it needs? The recent expansion of bird flu among mammals in the United States is a salutary lesson. Thankfully, there are no signs yet of human-to-human transmission, but it reminds us of the incredible value and importance of being vigilant in this space and having the best possible technology ready to respond as soon as possible.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and of course for his integral role not just during the pandemic, but in setting up the UKHSA. He will understand that I and others are keeping this under very close review, and the chief medical officer is briefing me as and when needed.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I ask her to write to me, please, so that we can look into it.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Given the importance of the UK’s life sciences sector, could my right hon. Friend update the House on commercial clinical trial recruitment?
Andrew Stephenson
Thanks in part to the sterling work of my hon. Friend, monthly average patient recruitment to commercial clinical trials is almost five times the figure it was back in June 2023. That is hugely positive, but there is clearly more to do in this space.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
For over a decade, the Camberwell dialysis unit has provided high-quality NHS care to patients in south London, so my constituents were shocked to hear that these services are to be outsourced to Diaverum, a multinational for-profit health corporation, which has already had one of its clinics rated inadequate and put into special measures. Does the Minister accept that privatising the NHS bit by bit has disastrous implications for care, and will he listen to patients in my constituency and commit to maintaining our NHS dialysis provision?
Andrew Stephenson
That sums up the usual contradiction on privatisation between Labour Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Any service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better patient outcomes. In Lambeth, patients who receive dialysis at the new site in Brixton will receive care in a significantly improved environment with brand new facilities, in a great example of an innovative public-private partnership. NHS England has established the renal services transformation programme to reduce unwarranted variation in the quality of access to renal care.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the good work that the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust has been doing to improve mental health outcomes, including the creation of a pioneering 24/7 urgent mental health care centre, providing urgent help when it is needed. Is that a model that could be rolled out across the country to improve access to mental health for all?
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
My hon. Friend rightly flags the excellent work going on to improve access to mental health services across the country. Last year, 3.6 million people got mental health support. That is an increase of around 30% in just three years, supported by record funding of over £16 billion into mental health care.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid could save many thousands of children from spina bifida, so why is it happening so slowly, at such a low level and applied to too few products?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I assure the hon. Member that we remain firmly committed to the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. That will help to protect around 200 babies each year from being born with neural tube defects. The policy is being delivered across the UK as part of a wider review of bread and flour regulations. In January we published our consultation response, and we will bring forward legislation to implement the policy later this year.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Ten days ago I went to the Whipps Cross A&E department to see for myself the pressures that the brilliant team there are under—pressures that are heavily exacerbated by the failure to redevelop the hospital. Originally, we were promised that the new hospital would be open by 2026, but we have still not agreed with the Department a plan and timetable to submit to the Treasury for that redevelopment. As a result, the hospital is having to spend huge amounts of money trying to stem the damage as well as being able to treat patients. It is costing us all. For the sake of patient care and NHS budgets, will the Minister meet me to work out where the hold-up is in getting Whipps Cross redeveloped?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member raises the performance of the A&E department in her local hospital. I have worked closely with the NHS over the past year to improve the performance of urgent and emergency care. Since this time last year, we have seen ambulance response times improve by over a quarter and waits in A&E cut. I am happy to meet her to talk about her specific A&E department.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I again thank the Secretary of State for visiting Watford General Hospital earlier this year, where we shared exciting plans for the new hospital, with preparation work starting this year, and construction starting by the end of 2026. I spoke with the West Hertfordshire NHS Trust leadership team this week, who confirmed that they are on track for that delivery within those timescales. Will my right hon. Friend please join me in thanking them for their hard work on that?
Victoria Atkins
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend, and I thank him again for a really positive visit to his local hospital. That is a great example of a local MP working in his local area for his constituents and, what is more, delivering for them.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As a practical measure to improve radiotherapy waiting times, will the Minister agree to further work on the radiotherapy dataset, to include the collection of data on delays at each stage of the radiotherapy pathway, and by tumour type, so that we can better understand pinch points in services?
Andrew Stephenson
We are working to improve radiotherapy services across the NHS, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that in more detail.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
West Hertfordshire Hospital Trust is at the front of the queue for the new hospital programme. We have the land, planning permission, building design, political and staff support, and enabling works are under way. But, like many other trusts around the country, the hospital trust is being asked to submit business case after business case. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether those delays are down to bureaucracy and the new hospital programme, or are they deliberate delaying tactics by a Government who do not want to release funds to hospitals before the general election?
Victoria Atkins
Normally, a Secretary of State would appear at the Dispatch Box after a question like that and say, “I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier.” On this occasion I will refer her to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell). He has just set out the business case for Watford General, which is great news, and I hope she will join him and me in welcoming that new hospital when it is open.
Infected Blood Inquiry
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make a statement on the evidence uncovered of experiments on children and the contaminated blood scandal, and update the House on the action that the Government are taking on the second interim report from Sir Brian Langstaff.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
Let me start by stating that the stories reported in the recent BBC news article, and indeed The Sunday Times report by Caroline Wheeler, demonstrate the unimaginable suffering of all those impacted by this dreadful scandal. As the House will know, in 2017 the Government established an independent public statutory inquiry chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, to give those impacted and their families the answers that they deserve.
Since it was established, the inquiry has taken evidence from a range of sources, and the testimonies are indicative of the bravery of every individual who has come forward. The infected blood inquiry’s final report is due to be published within a month, on 20 May, and we expect the inquiry’s findings to cover a set of extremely challenging issues. It would not be right for the Government to pre-empt the findings of this long-prepared and carefully considered report, but the Government have committed to update Parliament through an oral statement on next steps within 25 sitting days following 20 May. It is our intention to make that statement as soon as possible. The 25-day stipulation is a deadline, and certainly not a target.
In January this year, I appointed an expert group to provide technical advice to the Cabinet Office in responding to the infected blood inquiry’s recommendations on compensation. That work is well under way and will build on the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry to inform the Government’s substantive response to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation. The Government understand the need to move quickly to provide compensation to victims of infected blood. Most recently, we tabled amendments just last Wednesday to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to impose a duty on the Government to establish an infected blood compensation scheme. It also establishes a new arm’s length body, named the infected blood compensation authority, to deliver the compensation scheme. It will operate on a UK-wide basis to ensure parity and consistency. That demonstrates our absolute commitment to deliver long overdue justice to victims of infected blood.
We understand that for many there is an urgent need for compensation. As the House will know, in October 2022, the Government paid more than £400 million in interim compensation to help to ease the short-term needs of those infected. The Government amendment also includes a statutory duty to make interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected people who were registering with existing or former support schemes, where previous interim payments have not already been made to infected individuals or their bereaved partners. That is an important step forward to get substantial compensation into the hands of families and victims of infected blood. Should that Government amendment be supported in the other place, it will return to this House for debate in the usual process of Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
Dame Diana Johnson
We know that more than 3,000 people have already died in the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. Another 680 have died since the public inquiry started in 2018. With two people dying on average every week, 100 people have died since Sir Brian made his final recommendations on paying compensation in April 2023. He said that
“wrongs were done at individual, collective and systemic levels.”
He also said that in all conscience he could not wait until his final report was published to tell the Government to start paying compensation.
Last week, Hugh Pym of the BBC produced shocking evidence about children, even babies, being experimented on in the 1970s and 1980s without their parents’ consent. These disturbing revelations raise serious criminal and ethical issues for the NHS and the medical profession. There are possible breaches of the 1947 Nuremberg code. Alongside that, The Sunday Times, and Caroline Wheeler, in particular launched a campaign at the weekend for compensation to be paid now to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. So far, more than 160 MPs have backed the campaign, and 10 parties are represented, including six leaders.
Last week, the Government finally laid those amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place after this House forced the Government to act in December last year. This weekend, Ministers confirmed that even when Sir Brian produces his final report on 20 May, the Government may not respond until as late as 3 July 2024. Meanwhile, there has been no announcement on compensation funding or on any compensation scheme, despite the Government having accepted the moral case for compensation.
What action are the Government taking following last week’s BBC story on the experiments on children? When will Sir Brian’s recommendations on compensation be implemented in full? On what date will payments be made to those infected and affected? Why have the interim payments not been made, as Sir Brian recommended last April? How will those infected and affected be involved in the whole scheme? Why are Ministers rejecting the three-month timeframe for setting up a compensation body that this House agreed to in December last year, and Sir Brian’s recommendation that it should be judge-led?
On all sides of the House, Members know that when people are dying, justice delayed is justice denied. The time to act is now.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and initial comments. Nobody in this House has done more than her to advance the interests of the infected and affected communities, as I have said consistently since I took office on 13 November. I recognise her frustrations and am doing everything I can to address them. Last week, I met her and other Chairs, across parties, as I did just before the Easter recess, and I will continue to update her as regularly as I can.
The right hon. Lady draws attention to commentary from Hugh Pym and other journalists about speculation and allegations, which I believe Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, when it is published on 20 May, should give substantive airing to, drawing on the evidence collected. It would be reasonable for the Government to wait for that authoritative statement on what information and evidence they have gathered before we respond, but that does not mean that, since I took office, I have been doing anything other than move forward everything I can on compensation as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Lady is quite right to say that over 3,000 deaths have occurred since 1970, including 141 last year. I recognise that the challenge of urgently securing interim payments, in terms of the mechanics of how it is done, is not a concern of the infected and affected community. She quite reasonably stands up and urges speed on that, and I am doing what I can. The statutory duty to make an interim payment of £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected people is the first time that we have put in legislation a duty to pay compensation before the ad hoc schemes, which, over the past 45 or 50 years, have never admitted culpability. I have also put into legislation, with the consent of both Houses, the need to set up the arm’s length body and make it as operational as soon as possible.
As I discussed with the right hon. Lady last week, my concern is to get that arm’s length body up and running as quickly as possible, and there is a legal obligation to do so when Royal Assent is gained—there is no statutory deadline but there is a responsibility to do that. I recognise the concern around a judge-led body. Indeed, Sir Brian Langstaff’s report suggests that a judge-led body would be desirable—I do not rule that out—but at this stage it seems reasonable not to confine it in legislation in case another candidate becomes available. Clearly, however, gaining the confidence of the affected and infected communities is absolutely integral to this process working. As I say, I am doing everything I can to bring forward the Government’s substantive response on the widest issues of compensation as near as I can to the 20 May, and I will update the House as often as I can. Indeed, I have made time available tomorrow for an open surgery for any MP who wants to bring cases to me.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I follow the tributes to the great Dame—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—for what she has been doing?
I have been actively involved in this in one way or another for 25 years. We all know that the justification for having the Langstaff inquiry has been the information that has now come out in public, which was concealed or not known over the decades. We also know that this is different from most of the discussions in the Pearson report on whether there should be compensation when things go wrong in medical treatment. This report is likely to show how, since the war, people have not paid enough attention to the warnings given by those in the field. With the update of Caroline Wheeler’s book and the BBC programme, we now know that, as well as the haemophilia trials published in the 1970s, the 1980s trials showed massive defects by the standards of those days, let alone by up-to-date standards.
I join the right hon. Lady in asking the Minister when it will be possible for people to register their names, backgrounds and circumstances for compensation. Do we have to wait until a month’s time for that to happen, and how will it be dealt with? Obviously, as the Cabinet Office Minister, he follows his predecessor in carrying this responsibility, but how far will the Department of Health and Social Care be involved, and will other Departments be involved?
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes wise observations. I did not mean not to pay tribute to him in a similar way; his commitment to this cause, probably over my lifetime, is extraordinary.
In respect of the £100,000 payments announced through the Government amendment tabled last Wednesday, we will be working with the existing support schemes to expedite them as quickly as possible for the estates of the deceased infected. On the substantive response on the wider complete compensation, through last week’s intervention, and building on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), we have established the delivery vehicle for compensation.
On the challenge that we were somehow delaying compensation, which was reasonably made, I think that what I have said to the House this afternoon makes it clear that we are committed in legislation to delivering that compensation, but that the terms of how we do so, and how we respond to translating those 18 recommendations into reality, is ongoing work that I will seek to address substantively as soon as possible by 20 May.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing an urgent question on this vital issue. Nobody could fail to be moved by the scale of the horror and injustice of this scandal. The latest revelations about apparent experiments on children, to which the urgent question relates, are truly appalling and show yet again how badly the victims have been let down. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard on the issue.
As part of delivering the justice that is so long overdue, the Government must now deliver on the compensation scheme. 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. Ministers have repeatedly accepted the moral case for compensation, but victims understandably have little faith and want to see firm action. That is why Labour was very disturbed to hear that the Government have tabled an amendment to undo the cross-party changes to the Victims and Prisoners Bill passed by this House in December last year. The changes that the Government want would have the effect of removing a clear commitment to delivering on the compensation scheme within three months of the Bill’s passing—yet another missed opportunity; yet another delay.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. Will the Government now consider accepting the cross-party consensus of establishing a clear three-month limit for the setting up of the scheme? Can the Minister confirm when victims can expect to receive final compensation payments following the publication of Sir Brian Langstaff’s review?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Respectfully, the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North was dependent on Royal Assent. I have tried to make it effective by putting an obligation on the set-up as soon as Royal Assent is granted, which will speed it up. I am working on operational matters around how such a body would work.
The hon. Lady asked me, as everyone does, about the Government’s substantive response on compensation more broadly. As I have indicated, I appointed the expert group in January to examine some of the issues in the recommendations, such as the need for redress for those living with chronic hepatitis B when that chronic infection definition did not exist. I have been seeking professional advice on the operationalisation of the recommendations. The conclusions of those deliberations, and the quantification and discernment of compensation, will be a matter for the Government when the final report has been published.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Like others, I have cases that have been waiting decades for a resolution, and which were pursued by my predecessor. When will those affected be able to start applying for compensation?
John Glen
I refer my hon. Friend to my reply a few moments ago about the £100,000 payment to the estates of deceased infected persons. The ultimate compensation will depend on what is arranged through conversations across Whitehall as soon as possible after 20 May. We are making good progress, and I want to bring that forward as quickly as I can after 20 May. Given the will of the House and the letter signed by so many MPs, it is pretty clear that it is on the Government to deliver, and that is what I am seeking to do as quickly as I can.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has done so much, and to journalists such as Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times and all those who have campaigned for decades, despite their own very deep trauma. They include Jan Smith, the mother of Colin, one of the youngest victims who was infected at only 10 months old, and who died aged only seven. She said in The Sunday Times at the weekend:
“When we found out little Colin was going to be treated by a world-renowned haematologist we were over the moon. Professor Bloom was like a God to us and we didn’t question him. We thought our son was being given the best possible treatment. But we will feel forever guilty that we had in fact handed our son over to his killer.”
These parents should not be burdened with this guilt. An estimated 380 children were infected in a massive breach of trust and medical ethics. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. What does the Minister say to the parents of children who were used as guinea pigs, in an utterly despicable practice that was made worse by the lack of redress for those families? When will all those infected and affected receive the compensation they are due, and an apology from this Government?
John Glen
I can reassure the hon. Lady that I am doing everything I can to bring that forward as quickly as possible. I recognise that the distress is widespread and is felt by individuals and families across the United Kingdom. I am working across the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is a UK-wide arm’s length body. My officials are working with prominent charities, organisations and support groups. I am reaching out to them to share progress, reassure the community that I have heard their concerns and seek their views in advance of 20 May. I am doing that out of deep respect for the suffering that they have experienced. On the substantive matter the hon. Lady asked me about, I refer her to my reply a few moments ago.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
When I was Health Secretary, I committed the Government to ensuring that the compensation recommended by Sir Brian be paid, and made the moral case that the UK Government must address this wrong. The stories from Caroline Wheeler and Hugh Pym have made that moral case stronger still. Can I push the Minister to move as fast as possible, but hold in his mind the critical nature of getting the response right as well? I commend his officials, who have worked so hard on this matter for so long. I entirely understand the need for urgency, but he must get it right at the same time. He is a diligent and deeply honourable man, and I hope he will hold that in his heart as he addresses the issue in the weeks to come.
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks and for what he has done on this matter. He is right: I feel responsibility both to get the substantive announcement agreed as quickly as possible and to ensure clear communication with the infected and affected community so that they have clear expectations of what will happen following that announcement. From all I have read and all that my officials have briefed me on, I recognise that this is likely to be one of the biggest scandals in the NHS that this country has seen. I respect Sir Brian Langstaff and his extensive work over several years. I wait respectfully for his final report on the wider issues on 20 May.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My constituent contacted me again yesterday. His father and uncles were all infected with contaminated blood, and all but two of the uncles have now died. He said to me:
“I had to grow up in care due to my father being too ill to look after me. We have been fighting for many, many years for justice.”
He thinks that the Government are dragging their feet on compensating victims. He is right, isn’t he?
John Glen
All I can do is account for what I have done since 13 November. I cannot really comment on the several decades previous to that. As the hon. Lady will know, we have had a series of ad hoc schemes, but the Government’s accepting culpability for what happened many years ago and the subsequent failure to respond will need to be addressed fully after 20 May. The Government’s amendment in the House of Lords is the first time that we will have put in legislation a duty to pay compensation. That is the start of a more comprehensive response that I am working on to secure collective agreement across Government, and I want to bring that forward as quickly as I am able to do so.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Langstaff recommendation for interim payments was because of the need for speed; because people are so ill. How many people do the Government believe to be still living who were infected in this scandal? How many of them applied for the interim payments? What proportion of those who applied have received the payments? If my right hon. Friend does not have the figures with him today, will he undertake to write to me and place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library?
John Glen
My right hon. Friend customarily asks precise and penetrating questions. I do not want to quote the few figures that I think I know, so I will write him a considered reply, which I will make available. Far too many people have suffered and far too many have died. We need to put this right as quickly as possible.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on her work to date. When I engage with my constituents, it is clear that not only have they lost loved ones to a preventable and painful death, but the stigma that those loved ones lived with during their life is part of the issue. Members across the House rightly want answers about the interim payments, because those families have received no compensation and no apology to date. If the Minister cannot give a date that people can expect payments, can he at least give some clarity on how they will be able to apply?
John Glen
First, I agree entirely with the hon. Lady with respect to the stigma. One cannot fail to be moved by the accounts of people in the 1980s; when they contracted HIV, the stigma in society was very different from where we are today. That has caused damage to relationships, to lives, and obviously to health—many people’s cases have been terminal.
The statutory duty to make interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased infected people will be carried out through the existing schemes. We are working with those schemes to work out how best to do that. That is different from recommendation 12, in that the Government took the view that we did not want to overwhelm the will of the estates—rather than divide it up among family members, which could be problematic and would cause delay. While I cannot give an authoritative date now, urgent work is ongoing to give clarity on the process for those people to register and to receive those payments.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The infected blood scandal is one of the biggest stains on the history of the NHS. I am pleased to hear that we are getting interim payments out as quickly as possible, but the Minister has talked about giving payments to deceased people’s estates rather than named individuals. Could he outline his reasoning? We want to make sure that compensation goes to the correct people quickly.
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the challenges is that some cohorts of people are not registered but have been part of a scheme that does not now exist. How do we best expedite the process across that affected community? Those are the sorts of practical issues that I am working through with officials, so that we can reach the best possible solution when we give our comprehensive response in due course.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
“Cheaper than chimpanzees” was how former pupils of Treloar’s school described themselves when they gave evidence to the inquiry. My constituent, Lee Moorey, was one of the pupils of that school, and has described to me how he felt that he was experimented on all those years ago. We have set up the Brian Langstaff inquiry; what more can the Government possibly want to know than what that inquiry is going to uncover, and why are they delaying compensation? Will the Minister confirm that nothing has been preventing the Government from paying compensation since the date that Brian Langstaff published his interim report last April?
John Glen
There is a challenge in translating 18 recommendations into numbers and into the reality of a transmission mechanism, as well as in the quantification and agreement across Whitehall. The work on the first part is under way: that is why we have engaged the experts to work out how to quantify the payments that will be due across different heads of loss. Quite reasonably, those numbers were not in the report—it would not be for Sir Brian Langstaff to put numbers on every single individual—but that work is under way. We are now working to agree the substantive response as soon as we can after the final report is published.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
This week, I will be using the mechanisms of this House to do something that, in 14 years as an MP, I have never before felt the need to do: present a petition. At the top of that petition will be the name of my constituent, Andrew Evans, one of the children who was infected with hepatitis and HIV. By a miracle, he survived to set up and help run the Tainted Blood campaign. Like many of my affected and infected constituents, he feels that this process has already gone on for too long, so I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this urgent question.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the updates he has given, particularly about support for the estates of the deceased. However, I urge him to continue to meet groups such as Tainted Blood and make sure that the communication on this issue is as clear and open as possible, so that those groups are engaged and can support their members as the process moves forward—and to do so as fast as possible.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend, both for what he has said today and for his engagement privately in recent weeks. I agree with everything he has said, and I have heard his challenge to be clear about communications to prominent charities, organisations and support groups. Letters were sent by my officials yesterday evening to set up those meetings. I have talked to cross-party representatives of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, seeking input on the names of groups. I am trying to respect their confidence while also meeting as many representative groups as possible, and to do that well before 20 May.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
This is surely the worst health scandal that we have seen, with Government after Government kicking the can down the road. We need to accept that there is a need for change, including a change in speed and urgency. The continued delays and prevarication—I regret to say that it feels like we have seen some more of that today—exacerbate the suffering. We know that two people are dying every week. The Minister must know that the delay on this issue is indefensible, and he must know its impact. Does he appreciate why such a large number of Members are pushing for action now, and does he understand that that is what we need him to deliver?
John Glen
Yes, I do understand that. I deeply respect the views of colleagues who have made strong representations on this matter, and I am doing everything I can to move it forward as urgently as I can. I will not repeat myself regarding the things I have said with respect to steps taken last week, or the spirit in which I am engaging and the reasons why I am doing it, but I agree with the hon. Lady that speed is absolutely of the essence.
There has been a lot of speculation in articles in recent days—and, most prominently, in Caroline Wheeler’s book—about the wider issues: what went wrong and why these things happened. Those matters will need to be addressed, but through the lens of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, which will be published finally on 20 May.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) not just for securing this urgent question, but for all the work that she and others in this place have done on this important matter.
Sir Brian Langstaff made his final recommendations on compensation early—a whole year ago—and recommended that the compensatory body make payments by last December. He did so because he was worried about the effects of a delay on the affected and infected. We have missed all of those deadlines; is this what Sir Brian’s worst fear looked like?
John Glen
I sincerely hope not. What I have said with respect to the interim payment is a response to the dialogue I have had with Members across both Chambers of the House, working with Earl Howe in the other place. I have been pretty clear that in I am doing everything I can to put preparations in place for giving a legal entity the obligation to pay compensation, and to minimise delay in advance of the final determination of the Government’s response, so that that response can be operationalised as soon as the decision is finally made.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Every time we have these urgent questions, we get a well-intentioned Minister giving a helpful but frustrating update about what is happening. This Minister is one of the most well intentioned, and today’s statement has been one of the most helpful, but what we want to hear—as the House has said clearly today—is a clear timeline for when applications for compensation can be made and when those payments will be made. He has come really close to telling us that today; can I encourage him to get over the line, tell us when it is going to happen, and satisfy all of us who are standing here on behalf of our constituents?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair and reasonable point. I would wish to say more than I am saying today, but we have not quite got to that point; I am doing everything I can to get there.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the mechanics of engagement with communities, I am very seized of the need to have a clear narrative for each different cohort, so that we can be crystal clear when those decisions are made. I recognise how frustrating this is. Obviously, agreeing, quantifying and making provision for those things is a collective process across Government, and I am doing everything I can, using my experience from several years in the Treasury. It is helpful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Health Secretary when the public inquiry was set up, and I am working with colleagues across Whitehall to deliver this as quickly as I can.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
One of the most upsetting aspects of this whole tragedy is the thought of those pupils at Treloar School being experimented on like “lab rats”, as one of the pupils said. They included brothers Michael and Bill Payne, and I met their widows Cath and Margaret over the Easter recess in Bristol. I accept that the Minister is trying to give detailed answers and that there are complexities, but what it really comes down to is the deep, deep wrong that was done to those little boys at Treloar’s, and compensation and apologies are owed to those people. Can I ask what the Minister is doing to communicate as clearly and effectively as possible with the families of those affected, so that they feel they are not being swamped by bureaucracy and that answers are close at hand?
John Glen
I have reached out to prominent charities, organisations and support groups to share the progress that has been made—I had to respect the fact that we needed to do that through the parliamentary process last Wednesday—and to seek their views, but not to replicate the considerable trauma that they went through giving evidence in an incredibly painful fashion through Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry. I am meeting those charities, organisations and support groups. I obviously cannot meet every single individual, but I am trying to use those meetings to inform the response of the Government and to make representations to my colleagues about what needs to be done so that we can land this in the most effective place as soon as we can from 20 May.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Does the Minister recognise that many people feel that the state, with all its delays in delivering justice to the victims of this scandal and their families, has utterly failed to recognise adequately the egregious harm that has been inflicted and continues to be inflicted on those impacted, leaving tens of thousands of victims and their families in great suffering as they continue to wait for compensation?
John Glen
Yes, I recognise that all delays are painful and frustrating and cause distress. That is why I am doing everything I can to move this forward as quickly as I can. I am sorry that that is repetitious, but it is the truth. I think I have updated the House meaningfully today on the legislation. I know what we need to do, which is to get to 20 May and, as soon as possible, come up with a comprehensive response on behalf of all those who have lost their lives and the families who have been ruined by this absolute scandal that has happened over 50 years.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I also give my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this urgent question? It gives me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Mark Fox, who contracted hepatitis C from infected blood when he was given a transfusion. He was just four years of age at the time. He was given contaminated factor VIII for his haemophilia. He was unaware of his hepatitis C diagnosis until he was 17, when he was in care. He has been living with the health consequences of this scandal for over 40 years. He lost his job, and we have mentioned the stigma. I say with all due respect to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best, that interim payments will offer a way of bringing relief to some of the survivors. Mark has asked me to ask the Minister how many more years he will have to wait before he receives either an interim payment or full and fair compensation for the suffering that he has endured.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his heartfelt representation on behalf of his constituent Mark Fox, and I am sincerely sorry for what he has experienced. I am doing everything I can to bring as much clarity as possible, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive timetable today. I am working towards—I hope—giving a definitive timetable at the point of, or very soon after, the publication of this final report. I will do everything I can to bring clarity to all groups involved.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It has been seven years and we have had four Prime Ministers since this public inquiry was set up, and there have been many decades waited before then. Surely the Minister will agree that the stories of children being impacted are tantamount to state-sponsored abuse—abuse similar to that suffered by my constituents Linda Cannon, whose husband died after a contaminated blood transfusion, and Vera Gaskin, who has stage 2 cirrhosis of the liver. Sir Brian Langstaff said that it would clearly take political will to act quickly, and the circumstances here warrant that. When will the victims—our constituents and their families—get compensation and justice? Surely the Minister recognises that issues such as these, whether it is Primodos, the Post Office scandal or contaminated blood, are taking decades and re-traumatising our constituents while they wait and often die before getting justice. It is not good enough.
John Glen
I very much recognise what the hon. Lady is saying with respect to the impact of time on suffering, and I want to bring this forward as quickly as I can. I am doing that work and sponsoring work to gain the advice we need to make informed decisions that will allow us to make the widest possible decision in a few weeks’ time.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I too am speaking on behalf of a constituent, who lost a brother and sister-in-law and whose nephew was left to be brought up by the family. I want to raise the urgency of this. I appreciate the Minister’s sincerity about what he is trying to do, and the fact that he has been in post for only a few months, but it is over a year now since Sir Brian Langstaff brought forward his report and said that interim payments were absolutely essential. I am trying to understand exactly where the block is. If this was a priority for the Government, it would have been done in that year, so where is the block?
John Glen
There is not a block. Last year, there was a process of looking at how we could work out the costs and the way of translating and operationalising the recommendations. That work is well under way, and Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and his team are helping with that. As I say, I hope that in a few weeks’ time we can get to a point where we will be able to make a substantive assertion of the Government’s position.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Building trust and confidence requires the support of the infected and affected community. Can the Minister confirm that the independent body’s executive will include representation from infected and affected people’s groups who can make decisions on processes, eligibility and decision making in order to build trust and confidence?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his engagement with me last week as one of the co-chairs of the APPG, when he made a similar point. I am reflecting carefully on what it takes to satisfy the recommendation to have a body independent of Government while also securing as much authority and as much confidence among the different communities involved as possible. I will update the House on that in due course.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My caseworker Paula was left bereaved as a teenager after her father was killed by HIV and hepatitis from infected blood products. She has suffered enormously since, including being bullied at school as a result of the stigma around HIV. She is now in her 40s and battling cancer, but despite the recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry a year ago in April 2023 that the children who lost parents should be awarded interim compensation, she has yet to receive a penny. How much longer will the Government keep victims such as Paula waiting?
John Glen
I very much hope that we will be able to make a clear assessment of what we are going to do in a matter of weeks. I am doing everything I can to be clear about depicting for each different group, including some going back 40 or 50 years, what the process will be going forward. We owe that to all the victims and their families, and I will try and be as comprehensive as I can in that response when it comes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers will be attending the launch of the report on 20 May?
John Glen
I do not know. I have not had those conversations yet. If a representative of the Government is asked to be there, I am absolutely sure that that will be the case. If it is me, I will be very happy to attend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers, and for his clear commitment to delivering for all those with severe health problems. Does he not agree that reading some of the information supplied by the BBC feels more like reading about a national regime’s atrocities than reading about action by our own healthcare professionals in the 1980s? It is quite distressing. How does the Minister believe that we can ever restore confidence in a process and procedures that allowed this to happen, and what assurances can the general public have that it could never happen again?
John Glen
When Sir Brian Langstaff publishes his report—and I have absolute confidence in the authority of the report that he will publish—that will be the time for a response from the Government on the wider implications of what went on and what evidence Sir Brian has gathered. As I said at the start of my response, we may have seen some elements of that in recent days, but I want to ensure that the Government respond authoritatively, and as fully as possible, when the moment of publication comes.
Childcare Entitlements
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the successful first stage of the largest ever expansion of childcare in England’s history, achieved by this Government.
The Government have a strong track record of helping parents with the cost of childcare, supporting disadvantaged children and ensuring that childcare is of high quality, with 96% of early years settings rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted. In 2010 we extended the three and four-year old entitlement, commonly taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year; in 2013 we introduced 15 hours of free early education a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds; in 2017 the three and four-year old entitlement was doubled to 30 hours per week for working parents; and in March 2023, recognising that childcare is one of the biggest costs facing working families today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the biggest investment in childcare by a UK Government in history, so that by September 2025 working parents will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare a week from when their children are nine months old until they start school.
By the time this expansion is complete, parents using the full 30 hours can expect to save an average of £6,900 a year, a hugely significant saving for their family finances. We are staggering the expansion to ensure that there are the staff and places available to meet parental demand, and this month marked the first stage of the roll-out, with eligible working parents now able to receive 15 hours of Government-funded childcare for their two-year-olds for the first time. Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education told the House that we expected 150,000 children to benefit from the expansion from the beginning of this month. As we said in our official statistical report, 195,355 parents were already benefiting from it on 17 April, and we have subsequently broken the 200,000 mark. We will publish further official statistical reports in due course.
As Members will know, the system involves parents applying for a code that they take to a provider to be validated in order to obtain a place. The first phase of the roll-out is showing a trajectory similar to that of our last expansion of childcare, in 2017. On 5 September 2017, 71% of codes had been validated; as of 17 April this year, 79% had been validated, and we have broken 81% as of this week. With every roll-out, some eligibility codes go unused for a variety of reasons, such as parents changing their minds about formal childcare, or being issued with a code automatically although they did not need one. In the case of our well-established offer for three and four-year-olds, about 12% of codes have not been validated, but as with previous roll-outs, we expect the number of children benefiting from this new entitlement—and the number of codes validated—to grow in the coming weeks and months.
As was the case in 2017, no local authorities are reporting that they do not have enough places to meet demand. I pay tribute to early years providers, local authorities, membership bodies and other key stakeholders who have worked closely with us to ensure that the first phase of the roll-out was successful and parents could access places, and we will continue to work closely with them for the next phases of the roll-out. The first of those will begin in September, but parents will be able to start applying for 15 hours of childcare for their nine-month-olds from 12 May. I am also delighted to announce that parents on parental leave, and those who are starting new jobs in September, will be able to apply for childcare places from 12 May, instead of having to wait until 31 days before their first day of work, as has been the case until now.
Delivering such a large expansion requires more staff and more childcare places. We estimate that we will need 15,000 more places and 9,000 more staff by September 2024, and that for September 2025, which is the largest phase of the roll-out, a further 70,000 places and 31,000 staff will be needed. Last year the number of childcare places increased by about 15,000, and the number of staff by about 13,000, even before the roll-out began and before the significant steps that the Government are taking, beginning with rates, to increase capacity in the sector.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has independently confirmed that funding for the new two-year-old entitlement is significantly higher than average parent-paid fees. According to the Government’s provider pulse survey published last week, the largest barrier identified by the sector—by 45% of respondents—to expansion of its provision was future funding certainty, a message that I have heard clearly from the many providers I have visited in recent months. In his 2024 Budget, the Chancellor committed himself to ensuring that funding rates for all entitlements would increase in the 2025-26 and 2026-27 financial years by the measure used last year. That estimated £500 million of additional funding over those two years will provide a level of certainty that we are confident will help to unlock tens of millions of pounds in private sector investment, ensure that rates keep up with provider cost pressures, and give providers a greater opportunity to increase staff pay.
This year, to support recruitment to the sector, we launched a £6.5 million recruitment campaign entitled “Do something BIG. Work with small children”, and thousands of people are visiting the campaign website every week to find out more about the great early years and childcare careers that are available. In January we introduced changes to the early years foundation stage to give providers greater flexibilities to attract and retain staff, and yesterday we launched a technical consultation setting out the Department’s proposals for how a new “experience-based route” could work for early years staff who have relevant experience from other sectors but do not have the full and relevant qualifications that we require.
Owing to the falling birth rate over recent years, some primary schools have space that they are no longer using, and some have closed entirely. In order to support our expansion of childcare, we have launched a pilot to explore how some of the unused school space could be repurposed to enable childcare settings to offer more places. If the pilot is a success, the Government will roll that out more widely.
Our progress in delivering this transformative expansion in early education and childcare underscores this Government’s unwavering dedication to empowering families, supporting the childcare sector, and building a prosperous future. I look forward to Labour Members welcoming this month’s news and/or finally telling us what their plan for childcare is, and I commend my statement to the House.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, but with red lights flashing across the board, this is a weak attempt by the Government to defend their bungled expansion of childcare provision. The Opposition are absolutely clear in our commitment to building a modern childcare and early years education system, and are putting quality at the heart of our vision. We support the expanded entitlement, but there are serious questions about whether the Government’s plans are deliverable. Ever since the Chancellor’s announcement in the 2023 Budget, parents and the early years sector have been crying out for a detailed and credible plan for the roll-out of the expansion, but the Government have consistently dismissed concerns and acted as if there were no problems when the problems are clear to see.
Today’s statement is yet another desperate attempt by the Government to avoid scrutiny of their childcare plans; it comes just hours before what we understand to be a highly critical report from the National Audit Office. It would have been far better if the Minister had come to the House following the publication of the NAO report, so that hon. Members could properly scrutinise his response to it.
The Department’s own modelling suggests that an extra 85,000 childcare places and 40,000 additional full-time equivalent staff will be needed by September 2025. That is a huge challenge when providers across the country are already struggling to recruit the skilled staff that they need; many are on the brink of closure. The Department’s recently published pulse survey, which the Minister is quoting in aid, found that two thirds of all group-based providers and staff of school-based providers continued to experience staffing problems, with little change since 2022. Nine in 10 providers responding to the survey have either reduced the number of places that they offered last year, or kept the same number of places. Similarly, data from Ofsted shows that in the six months following the Chancellor’s original announcement, childcare places fell by more than 1,000. How can the Minister credibly claim that everything is on track when that is the feedback from the sector?
Coram’s annual survey of childcare providers is also clear about the Government’s failure. Just 28% of local authorities are confident that they will have enough places for the expansion to children from the age of nine months; that is almost three quarters of communities where parents will not be able to access the childcare that the Government have promised. Across every age group and category, Coram found a fall in the number of local authorities able to deliver sufficient childcare in their area. Some 87% of areas saw the workforce crisis as the biggest barrier to the expansion, but there is still no detailed workforce plan from the Government. Just 6% of areas are confident that they will have sufficient childcare for disabled children, which is a truly shameful failure.
We need a serious plan to ensure childcare expansion is a success for children, parents and providers. The Opposition are clear that we will be led by the evidence. That is why we have commissioned Sir David Bell to review the challenges facing the sector and inform our plans for future reform. How many of the codes that the Minister’s Department issued in the April expansion have translated into provision of a childcare place? Where is the additional £500 million of investment announced in the Budget being funded from, and what is being cut to provide that funding? What urgent discussions is he having with the early years sector about the impact of the April expansion on its financial sustainability? Will he guarantee today that every family will be able to access a childcare place following the planned further expansion in September—yes or no?
Children’s voices are not heard often enough in this place, so on their behalf, I warn Ministers: childcare and early education are too important to be put at risk by the mess they are making. The issue today is not simply about places, the staff in our nurseries or even work choices for parents, but life chances for our children. Ministers must, for the sake of all our children, get a plan in place now.
David Johnston
Well, I did not hear a plan there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
David Johnston
The shadow spokesperson says it is not her job. With a general election later this year, it is not her job to have a plan.
Staffing had gone up by 13,000 people before we even started the expansion. Our winter survey showed that at the end of last year, applications for vacancies at group-based providers went up from two for each vacancy to five for each vacancy. I did not entirely hear the question asked by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), but I think she asked how many children had received something as a result of the expansion—if that was not her question, I will write to her. The answer is 200,000 and counting. We expect the number to go up in the coming weeks and months, as it has with other expansions.
The funding for 2025-26 and 2026-27 increases to rates will come from day-to-day spending. The April expansion is the point at which providers will see a significant increase in their rates. By the way, that increase is £4 more per hour than parents are currently paying for under-twos provision. That is a significant increase in the rates that are being provided. Just as I was confident about the April roll-out, which has now been delivered, despite all the noise and sniping from the Opposition Benches, I am confident about the September roll-out.
The shadow Secretary of State has said that the hours model has failed and that we should move away from it. She said that she would have a childcare plan that would be like the creation of the NHS. Nobody knew what that meant, and 15 months later, it seems that neither did she, because she has had to ask somebody to write a plan for her instead. The truth is that while this Conservative Government have just successfully delivered the first stage of their childcare expansion, which 200,000 parents are benefiting from, Labour still has no plans, no policy and no idea how to help families with childcare.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
There is much in this statement to be welcomed. The Education Committee welcomed the expansion of childcare, broadening the offer, and the increase in funding for the funded hours, and this delivers on some of that. It is an early success story, but as the Opposition have said, there are clearly serious risks as the plan expands exponentially over the coming years. In order to address those risks, the Minister needs to secure more funding and more places.
The 13,000 places are a welcome start and more staff in the sector are vital, but can he assure me that on top of the very welcome half a billion pounds that was secured in the spending review, he will keep making the case and keep listening to the providers about the funding they need to keep moving this forward? Can he ensure that the same quantum of increase is there for the under two-year-olds as it is for the two-year-olds, compared to what is currently paid in the private sector?
David Johnston
I thank my hon. Friend for raising some important issues. He is right that certainty and increasing those rates have been some of the most important things that the sector has asked for. It was very warmly received that we were providing that certainty for 2025-26 and 2026-27, which we think will help the sector. According to various reports that have been carried out, it will help them to unlock private sector investment and capital to help them expand, because that was the biggest thing they felt might be holding that back. It is part of a doubling of the amount that we are spending on childcare, from £4 billion to £8 billion. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend in ensuring we address the sector’s needs.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by declaring an interest as a parent of a two-year-old child. What all of us parents are talking about is the cost of childcare, and the Minister did not address the cost. The survey clearly showed that over half of all nurseries and pre-schools say that the funding does not cover the cost of providing the service in the way that the Government are asking them to provide it. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that somebody’s got to pick up the bill—a toddler could do it.
The estimate before the Government announced the new hours was that fees would rise by 8.5%. Every single parent of a child in a nursery in my local community who has come to me has said that their fees have gone up as a direct result of this policy, because that is how nurseries are trying to stay open and make ends meet. Will the Minister prove me wrong? Will the Minister commit to publishing the data on the fees that parents of all children under five in nurseries and pre-schools are paying in this country, prior to and post the changes in hours?
David Johnston
We have a survey of 6,000 parents and 9,000 providers to set our rates based on exactly what they are paying. The hon. Lady must have missed my saying that our rate for under-twos is over £4 more per hour than that paid by a parent privately. I know that she does not like these facts, because they are at odds with her narrative. She asked me to prove her wrong; this month, we have just done so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The expansion of Government-funded childcare is going to be a major benefit to many families in my Chelmsford constituency, so on the first day of the expansion I went to visit Scallywags Nursery, one of the many outstanding childcare providers in my constituency. I was overwhelmed by how happy and loved the children are. They would like to expand, but they rent premises from the local council, which is run by the Lib Dems who wrote to me last night saying the council will not give more space to expand this amazing nursery. Is there any capital funding available to help nurseries expand?
David Johnston
That sounds like typical behaviour from a Lib-Dem council. At the end of last year, we allocated £100 million in capital funding—every local authority got some of it—precisely to help providers like the one my right hon. Friend described to expand, upgrade their buildings and so on. I would take that answer and see what the council is doing with that money.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Last year, 3,000 childminders left the sector, with the Early Years Alliance estimating that the current offer for three and four-year-olds is underfunded by £1.8 billion. That is impacting hard-working parents, particularly in rural areas such as the one I represent. Amelia, a provider in Cullompton, let me know that Devon gets just £5.20 of funding per hour for the care of three to four-year-olds, which is way below the rate in some urban areas. Westminster, for example, gets a rate of £8.17 per hour. What will the Minister do to address that imbalance and ensure that people struggling with the cost of childcare in rural areas are not short-changed?
David Johnston
In September we put in more than £200 million to increase rates, and in April we have put in a further £400 million to increase rates, in part to help providers meet the costs of the 9.7% increase in the national living wage that the Government have made, so rates are going up. Specifically on childminders, we have been doing a few things. We have a childminder grant scheme to try to encourage more childminders into the sector, and we have also been consulting on things that would make their lives easier and more flexible, and allow them to be part of more networks, so that we can grow what is an important part of the childcare market.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
To listen to the gloomsters on the Opposition Benches, anyone would think that childcare policy was a triumph under the last Labour Government. In 2010, widespread funded childcare was just not a thing, and where the Labour Government did provide subsidies, they were in schools latching on to nurseries, in direct competition to independent providers.
Among the expansion, which I very much welcome, what is being done to help workplace providers, particularly in places such as hospitals where we have public service workers in short supply who are working irregular hours and cannot necessarily use mainstream nurseries? What is the Minister doing to try to encourage more men into the profession, too?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we inherited some families being able to get 12.5 hours of childcare. Thanks to the Government’s expansion, they will now be able to get 30 hours each week from when their children are nine months old until they start school.
My hon. Friend raised two other important issues. First, on people who work irregular patterns, it is important to say that we do not require the childcare pattern to be 9 to 3; we want that flexibility for people working awkward hours, and to make it easier to have that provision in other settings. He is also entirely right about trying to encourage more men into the sector. In addition to our big recruitment campaign just to get more people into the sector, we have a specific focus on trying to encourage more men.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
For all the Minister’s glib responses, he has failed to address the fact that the children’s organisation Coram has reported that just 6% of local areas have sufficient childcare places for children with special educational needs and disabilities. What is he doing to ensure that all children with additional needs in constituencies such as mine can access childcare and that providers have the staff, the resources and the space they need to do so?
David Johnston
I do not think the hon. Lady has listened to the content of any of the answers I have given. We work with every local authority in the country. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are a number of places available, and we work with every local authority to ensure that they have sufficient places, including for children with special educational needs. Not a single local authority is reporting that it does not have sufficient places.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly because in Basingstoke two in three parents of two-year-olds are already using childcare, so they can apply for and benefit from this extra support. Will he talk a little more about how this will help give more parents the opportunity to get back into employment, which can be particularly important for us when we are looking to address the gender pay gap?
David Johnston
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things that might happen with this expansion is that parents will for the first time have childcare for their two-year-olds. The other thing is that, because they can claim 15 hours, they might increase the hours they were already paying for, to relieve the pressure on their finances. So she is absolutely right about the labour market impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that it expected 60,000 people to enter the workforce and 1.5 million to increase their hours as a result of being able to access this childcare, which will be a huge benefit to the economy.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Childcare in Northern Ireland is in a critical condition, and we are not even receiving these new changes, flawed as they may be. On Saturday, I joined thousands of parents on a march in Belfast demanding immediate intervention, because £10,000 a child per year is far from unusual. The Northern Ireland Executive promised that that would be a day one priority, but they have not delivered more than warm words. One interim solution could be raising the £2,000 tax-free limit—even just in line with inflationary pressures, as applies to other benefits—certainly for Northern Ireland parents who miss out on what the Minister has just outlined. Will he commit to exploring that with the Treasury in order to, in his words, “empower” parents?
David Johnston
The precise parameters for that are set by the Treasury, but we would like more people to claim that tax-free childcare, because many people could claim it but do not do so at that level—and, of course, it is doubled for children with SEND. People can have that with the existing entitlements in England, which can further boost their finances. We are keen to encourage people to do that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
To declare an interest, my youngest son Rupert, who is two, enjoyed his first day at pre-school last week under this scheme. I know from talking to many other parents across my constituency just how transformational this expansion of the childcare offer is. However, with Buckinghamshire, which is the natural and obvious place where people want to move to bring up their families, I fear that demand may well outstrip supply soon. We also have competing cost pressures from bordering London, where, when it comes to recruitment, the challenge of moving to an outer London borough to get London weighting at work is real. As my hon. Friend continues his superb work in ensuring that we have that expansion in childcare provision, will he ensure that counties such as Buckinghamshire and others across the south-east are given special consideration, given those cost pressures?
David Johnston
I am delighted to hear that Rupert has been able to take advantage of the offer. My hon. Friend is right that in different parts of the country we see different rates required by providers, based on the costs they are facing. That is why our rates are different in different parts of the country. Local authorities have to pass through 95% of what we give them to ensure that as much of that goes to the provider as possible, but we will continue to ensure that they are set according to what providers tell us they are having to pay, so that they have the money that they need.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
An increasing number of constituents are coming to me because they are struggling to access childcare when they need it, which is partly exacerbated by staff shortages and sickness and overstretched providers. However, I want to press the Minister on this point. He said in his statement that the estimated £500 million of additional funding will
“ensure that rates keep up with provider costs pressure”.
What modelling has been done to ensure that that is the case, particularly with reference to places such as Bristol, where we know that a lot of overheads will be higher than in many other places outside London? I do not expect him to have the figures at his disposal today, but will he promise to write to me to give me an assessment of what has been done in relation to Bristol?
David Johnston
Yes, I will. The projections for the years 2025-26 and 2026-27 are based partly on economic conditions at the time—a few factors going into them will determine those rates—but I will write to the hon. Lady about specifically what has been happening in Bristol to date.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As a parent of a 20-month-old, I know that this new entitlement will be very much welcomed by many parents across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire and will make a massive impact on many working families in particular. However, I also know there are challenges in getting the right place for a child. With the Minister look at what more can be done to ensure we support the sector as much as possible and expand those places in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend is right. Our key focus is on ensuring that places and staff are available in every area of the country, as we have shown in April with 200,000 benefiting from the new entitlement. We are pulling every lever, in time for the roll-out next September and the September after, to up recruitment, up rates, encourage more people into the sector and help expansion to ensure that provision is there.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I will start on a consensual point: it is not a bad thing that the Government want to extend early years childcare provision. We all want to see that and we want it to work. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the Minister said, however, that not a single local authority is telling him that there are not sufficient places, yet Coram says that 35% of local authorities—a decrease of 29% since last year—reported that there was sufficient childcare for children under two. Both statements cannot be correct, so why does Coram think that in some local authorities there are insufficient places?
David Johnston
I have seen those figures. Many of these surveys are based on a measure of confidence taken at some point before the roll-out; all I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that we worked with those local authorities all the way up to that roll-out, to ensure that they had those places. Sometimes, when people say they are not confident, they turn out to be able to provide all those places. My point to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and now to the hon. Gentleman, is that since the expansion for April, no local authority is reporting that it does not have sufficient places. We will now work with them on the next stage of that expansion for September—the first 15 hours for nine-month-olds and upwards—to ensure that that is the case again.
Points of Order
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Friday the Prime Minister made a speech, not to this House, but to the press, describing what he referred to as a “sick note culture”, and implying that people who are economically inactive due to ill health or disability are not genuine, but malingerers. That was grossly offensive not only to people who are unable to work because of ill health but to the clinicians caring for them, as it questioned their professional integrity. It ignored the overwhelming evidence from epidemiologists such as Professor Sir Michael Marmot, which shows that over the last 14 years we have become a sick nation, living shorter lives and less of our lives in good health. It is certainly not the compassionate approach that the Prime Minister said he was going to preside over. Fundamentally, though, it ignored the sovereignty of Parliament. When can we expect the Government to bring the matter to the House so that we can question the Prime Minister on his assertions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving notice of it. The Speaker has no power to compel the Prime Minister to come to the House. However, it is an important principle, set out in the ministerial code, that when Parliament is in session the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. The Speaker has been clear about that. I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Lady’s remarks—I can see them focusing on me—and will feed that back.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your counsel? My Business and Trade Committee now has oversight of arms control, and is stepping up to its duty by holding tomorrow its first hearing on arms exports to Israel. Some 20 days ago, we requested that Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign Office come and give evidence. They did not reply; they had to be chased last week, and on Friday told us they were not prepared to attend. This is a topic of importance to the House, and it is also important that Ministers, in fulfilling their legal responsibility, are politically accountable. What advice can you give me, at this late stage, to try to ensure that we have Ministers in front of the Select Committee tomorrow morning?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. Again, attendance by Ministers before a Select Committee is not a matter for me or for the Speaker, but it is certainly true that Select Committees are entitled to expect timely replies from Ministers to invitations. Again, I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised and will feed them back. My other advice would be perhaps to raise the matter with the Leader of the House, who might be able to assist; I suggest he pursues the matter that way.
Neurodivergent Conditions (Screening and Teacher Training)
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Neurodivergent Conditions (Screening and Teacher Training) Bill 2023-24 View all Neurodivergent Conditions (Screening and Teacher Training) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about screening for neurodivergent conditions in primary schools; to make provision about teacher training relating to neurodivergent conditions; and for connected purposes.
I stand here in this Parliament to represent all those who need a different type of support because their brains work differently. The Bill I am presenting is one important step in getting everyone the education they deserve. We have a principle in this country, and have had for more than a century, of a universal education system. Ensuring that we have proper, tailored provision for children with neurodivergent conditions is a critical part of that education.
Society now recognises neurodiversity more than it ever has, and we certainly have a much more positive debate about neurodiversity than at any point in my lifetime. We have more recognition in society broadly of the strengths that neurodiversity can bring and of the support that people with a neurodivergent condition need to thrive. I think that attitudes over a generation have shifted. I notice that myself: I am dyslexic, but for over 20 years I hid my dyslexia and I felt a sense of shame about it. Now I see that as wrong, but that is how I felt. That impact of society’s attitude has reduced.
However, I am one of the lucky ones. Because I was good at maths, I could get through school well and I got into an amazing university, where my dyslexia was identified. Still today, only one in five dyslexic children have their dyslexia identified in school. Parliament and the law have not yet caught up with the change in society, and there is further to go; that is why I present this Bill.
The Bill will make provision for, essentially, two things. The first is the early identification in primary school—preferably in the first year of primary school—of neurodivergent conditions, including not only dyslexia, but a broad spectrum of neurodivergent conditions. Only if we measure such things and find out how each individual child’s brain works can we best get tailored support for them. The second is the strengthening of teacher training. I recognise the work of the Minister and his predecessors to introduce specific requirements for neurodivergent conditions to be part of the teacher training syllabus, but much more still needs to be done. I also recognise his work in the Green Paper, published last year, on the early identification of those conditions, but still far too little happens. Turning policy from a consultative Green Paper into action on the ground is critical.
Neurodivergent people often have the skills that are increasingly needed in the world. The straight line thinking can be done by computers—artificial intelligence is accelerating that change yet more—but future jobs will need skills such as creativity, lateral thinking and enhanced communication that are often more prevalent among those who are neurodiverse. It is great to see some employers, such as GCHQ, Deloitte, UBS and Universal Music, proactively hiring neurodivergent people, but if people do not know that they have a condition, they will not be empowered to do what is necessary to make the most of those extra skills.
It is great to talk about the positive benefits that a neurodivergent condition can bring, but the stark reality is that children with such a condition are far more likely to be excluded from school and end up in the criminal justice system. Academics describe that as the “school to prison pipeline”. Shockingly, 97% of children excluded from primary school had a special educational need, and 80% of children cautioned or sentenced in the youth justice system have a special educational need—80%. They are nearly all teenagers. If their condition could be identified early, when they are five or six, then they could get the support they need. The impact on the nation’s finances, let alone the impact on those individuals, would be significantly improved. Research consistently demonstrates the efficacy of early interventions to support neurodivergent children. For example, research by the Education Endowment Fund revealed that those who received the Nuffield early language intervention programme made on average the equivalent of four months’ additional progress in language skills, compared with pupils who did not get access to NELI. The Department has funded access to NELI in many primary schools, but not all. I welcome that, but there is more to do. That shows the cost-effective nature of early intervention.
Technology is making early intervention more and more possible. Through the power of AI, screening of all children will allow us to understand how their brains work and teachers better to help them, identifying those who need a formal diagnosis at an early stage. That is critical. According to a London School of Economics report published last November, 15% of children with special educational needs and disabilities lived in the most affluent decile, while only 6% lived in the most deprived. Those statistics are important, because they show that the distribution of access to a formal diagnosis is clearly unfair. It cannot be true that 15% of children with SEND come from the most affluent decile, while only 6% come from the least affluent. Obviously, parents in the most affluent areas are more likely to be able to pay for a diagnosis, so there is an issue of social justice here in terms of access to provision. We must take action to ensure universal screening and identify who has these conditions. We can then ensure a fairer distribution of formal diagnosis.
I want to thank the huge number of campaigners, including many who are here today. I draw attention to the work of the Accessible Learning Foundation, which campaigns both on policy and on the availability of screening in schools. I also thank Dan Harris, and share his son’s powerful story as an example of when this can go right. His son, The Joshie Man, was identified as autistic very early on in life. His parents were told that he might never talk, but due to his loving parents and their ability to get him the support he needed, including the technology and his reader which he carries around with him, he can now communicate, learn how to ride a bike and help to cook meals. I was incredibly moved to see in the past month or so that he can now speak a few words. That shows what can happen if we get it right.
As the Bill progresses, I ask the Government to listen carefully to the evidence, the science and the data, and ensure we get the access that children deserve, so that we have equality of opportunity in our education system for those whose brains think in a straight line and those who think differently.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Matt Hancock, Yasmin Qureshi, Jim Shannon, Henry Smith, Holly Mumby-Croft, Jane Hunt, Andrew Selous, Tom Hunt, Kelly Tolhurst and Paul Bristow present the Bill.
Matt Hancock accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June and to be printed (Bill 205).
Football Governance Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill 2023-24 View all Football Governance Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
Football is part of our national life. Over the years, English football has become a universal language. Wherever you are, whatever country you are in, you are never far away from a fan of one of our great clubs. We are a global football powerhouse and our economy benefits: billions for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country, and tens of thousands of jobs. Our premier league is world leading. And the strength of our national game goes far beyond the top tier. Hundreds of thousands of fans turn out every week and come together to support teams up and down the football pyramid. Football clubs are at the heart of our communities. Each and every Member will be able to testify to that. Each Member will also be able to testify to the fact that we have the best fans in the world.
Unfortunately, too many of those very same fans have been taken for granted. Too many fans have seen their team’s owners change club badges and colours without any fan input, or have seen their club sell its stadium and up sticks. Too many fans have watched on as their clubs tried to join closed-shop breakaway leagues against their wishes. And too many fans have seen their club struggle and even collapse under the weight of mismanagement and poor ownership. There have been 64 instances of clubs falling into administration since the Premier League was founded in 1992. Clearly, not all clubs are feeling the benefits of English football’s global success and something has to change.
We all want to see our national game prosper for generations to come, but if we want our clubs to thrive, fans have to be at their heart. If we want English football to remain a global success story, we have to ensure our pyramid is financially sustainable. I am proud to say that the Football Governance Bill will do exactly that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing forward this Bill. As she says, football goes all the way down the football pyramid—not just in terms of its quality, but in terms of the entertainment it offers. Does she agree that a classic example of that is the fantastic entertainment that Coventry City provided in the FA cup semi-final on Sunday? Despite the club temporarily not being part of the premier league, it is none the less clear not just to the Coventry City supporters in my constituency but to everyone that the financial health of clubs that are further down the football pyramid matters for the entertainment they can provide. Does she agree?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: that was a tremendous match. It shows the importance of the football pyramid, and how it delights and disappoints fans across the country to see clubs go up and down.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the Government for bringing forward this overdue Bill. Chesterfield has seen the worst of football, with the former owner Darren Brown ending up in jail for his crimes against the club, which almost took it out of existence. Under the ownership of the Chesterfield FC Trust, Chesterfield are now back where they belong—in the football league—after becoming champions of the national league this year. Is it not the case that what our football clubs really need is to be run by people with a commitment to those clubs and a passion for them, rather than by people who are trying to make a quick bob?
Lucy Frazer
To address the point about the Bill being long overdue, the Labour party said for some time that it would do something about this issue but did absolutely nothing. Since I have been Secretary of State, we have had a White Paper and a response to it, and we have drafted a Bill at speed. We have introduced the Bill, and I am delighted that it is having its Second Reading today. I recognise that the Labour party supports the Bill, and I am very grateful for its collaboration. I am very pleased that Chesterfield are in a good place. We want to see ownership that works across the field.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am very proud that our Government are bringing forward this Bill. Others had opportunities to do so but did not, and it is very important. I shall support its Second Reading tonight, because it is important to protect the football pyramid. The Bill talks about guaranteeing that fans will be consulted on key decisions that impact on them, which it will do in one respect, but fans of teams lower down the pyramid will be affected by the decision last week to get rid of FA cup replays, which are a lifeline for many clubs by providing opportunities to get a big draw at Anfield, Old Trafford or even Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Obviously this Bill will not touch on that, but does the Secretary of State have any comments on this issue?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because those David and Goliath fixtures are part of the magic of football. I know that replays have been a welcome source of income for smaller clubs throughout the years. I spoke to the FA about this issue at Wembley on Saturday, but as he will know, these are decisions for the football authorities. This Bill will ensure that we have appropriate financial regulation in place.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I am not going to mention my local football clubs—oh, all right, I will: Walsall football club and Darlaston Town 1874 FC, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary. The shape of the Bill at the minute is due to the Minister sitting next to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has engaged with all Members. I pay tribute to him for including all of us. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is looking at the Bill in a party political way, because the Government have been in power for the last 14 years. Let us all pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Pudsey, who has done a fantastic job.
Lucy Frazer
In the next part of my speech, I am going to pay tribute to a large number of Members who have played a considerable part. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) has done a tremendous amount, as have many Members from across the House, but I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), without whom we would not be in this position today.
I was responding to a point about the delay. Those on the Opposition Benches might criticise us for the delay, but the truth of the matter is that they cannot legitimately do so, because they had an opportunity to take action and failed to take it. That is why we have taken the action that we have.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) that we should recognise that many people have played a considerable part in bringing this Bill to fruition, because many people have championed these reforms. I would like to mention again my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who was recently awarded a damehood. Her voice and her work have been instrumental in getting us to where we are today. As well as being chair of the fan-led review, she has helped lay the foundation. She has worked very closely with me, and in particular with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, to make sure that this Bill is in the shape that it is as it comes before the House today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who is Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has worked with us in Government throughout the development of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has been a powerful voice in this debate and pressed hard, along with other members of the Northern Research Group, to change the status quo. I would also like to recognise the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is my opposite number, and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), both of whom have been engaged throughout. I know that they are supportive of the ambition behind introducing a new regulator.
Particular thanks should be extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), the right hon. Member for Walsall South, the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and many others in this House.
I also thank the relevant all-party parliamentary groups, the football authorities, the Football Supporters Association, the FA, the Premier League and the EFL. Everybody has played their part in making sure that this Bill is in the shape that it is as we bring it forward today. Everybody knows it takes a village to develop a Bill of this size and scope, and credit is due to parties across the House, across football, across academia and across business. Hundreds of people have given us their time and their insight to help get the regulator right, and for that I am extremely grateful.
As Members will know, the centrepiece of this Bill is a new, independent regulator with a clear and unambiguous purpose: to protect the game that we all love. The way to do that is by getting football’s house in order. To that end, the regulator will not interfere with matters on the pitch. Instead, it will be focused tightly on governance, finances, ownership and fans. It will help clubs to build their resilience, while preventing teams from falling into the wrong hands to begin with.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The mighty Bristol Street Motors trophy winners, Peterborough United, contacted me today to express their support for this Bill, but they suggested that it is vital that the independent regulator has the powers and the ability to intervene on financial model arrangements. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the independent regulator will have those powers?
Lucy Frazer
The regulator will have significant powers in relation to individual clubs and, when triggered by either the Premier League or the EFL, to the leagues themselves. It will have backstop powers in order to look at the pyramid as a whole.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am always delighted to hear conversations about football taking place here or anywhere else. The Secretary of State talks about clubs getting their house in order. Does she agree that an important part of that would involve clubs looking at who their shirt sponsors are? Does she agree that shirt sponsorship by disposable vape companies is wholly unacceptable, has no part in modern football, and sets a really bad example to all our children? We want them to love the game that matters so much to all of us.
Lucy Frazer
I am sure that over the course of this debate many Members will raise issues of concern to them and their constituents. I emphasise that the Bill is about financial regulation, although I am very pleased that the Premier League has taken action on gambling advertising on the front of shirts, which is something we looked at very closely, and that the Government are taking action on vaping and smoking more broadly. The Bill is tightly defined and addresses financial regulation, and I am very pleased that we have introduced this legislation.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State is exactly right about the financial aspects of this Bill, but we have to make sure that we get the balance right. We do not want to kill the golden goose that is the Premier League, and we want to make sure that we have growth in the sport, through the championship and the EFL. We have to consider the crowded calendar of European matches, too. Does she believe that the regulator will have the ability to chart that very fine line between UEFA, FIFA and her proposal? That is going to be pretty tough.
Lucy Frazer
We do not want to do anything that damages the world-leading Premier League, which is worth £7 billion. People across the world look to the Premier League, and we have worked very closely with the Premier League, the EFL and others to try to get the balance right. I have met the executives extensively during this period, and I have met all the clubs in the Premier League and the EFL to try to get the balance right. We are trying to get a light-touch regime that allows the leagues to do what they are already doing, but with a regulator. The Bill is all about financial regulation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will understand that many of my constituents who support Everton are greatly concerned about the eight point deduction applied by the Premier League for breaches of its profit and financial sustainability rules. Nottingham Forest face a two point deduction for similar breaches, and other clubs have yet to face any sanction.
Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents and many other football fans that her commitment to support the Premier League does not mean that the Bill will not have sufficient strength? Does she share my concern that my constituents and many others are worried about a lack of transparency, consistency and fairness in the case of Everton and other clubs? Will she give reassurance on that point?
Lucy Frazer
As I am making clear, the Bill is about financial regulation. I know that many fans are concerned about issues within the game itself. The Bill will not regulate how football is played, which is a matter for the footballing authorities. This is about ensuring that clubs up and down the pyramid are financially sustainable under a regulator. If no deal is agreed on distributions, the regulator can step in. This will protect the pyramid overall.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning me earlier. Does she accept that one of the biggest drivers of financial stability is the parachute payments in the championship? Does she think it is a flaw that the Bill excludes parachute payments from the regulator’s powers?
Lucy Frazer
We understand that parachute payments have a role to play. There is provision in the Bill to deal with parachute payments, but that provision relates to the consideration on a club-by-club basis in the licensing regime itself.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When clubs like Norwich City are promoted to the Premier League, those parachute payments give them the confidence to invest, which drives competition in football. Are they not a good thing that we should be supporting?
Lucy Frazer
We believe that parachute payments have a role to play, although I know people have concerns about distortion. Under the Bill, if there is any issue relating to the finances of a particular club, particularly by reference to the parachute payments it might have received, the regulator has an ability to look at that within the licensing regime as a whole.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I have read the Bill, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State has read it. Under clause 55(2)(b), the regulator is not allowed to deal with
“revenue that the specified competition organiser distributes to a club by virtue of a team operated by the club being relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser.”
In other words, parachute payments are deliberately excluded from the remit of the regulator. Why has that been done when it is one of the most distortive elements of the current arrangements?
Lucy Frazer
I have been very intimately involved in this Bill, having put together all the policy recommendations and had discussions with all the parties. I encourage the hon. Member to read all aspects of the Bill, not just the provisions in relation to the backstop, which he quoted. I know many Members feel that parachute payments are very important, so let me try to explain again.
I know that many stakeholders have concerns about the impact of parachute payments on financial stability, sustainability and resilience, and I know that parachute payments can play an important role in softening the financial blow of relegation at all levels of the football pyramid. Given the complexity of the issue, the regulator will need to undertake an holistic, evidence-based assessment of the system of financial distributions as part of its state of the game report, and this will include an assessment of parachute payments.
Parachute payments have been specifically excluded from the backstop mechanism to ensure that the two final proposals from the Premier League and the EFL are easily comparable. The impact of parachute payments on financial sustainability and resilience could be a relevant factor in both the decision to trigger the backstop and the final choice in relation to a proposal. More generally, the regulator can look at the impact of a parachute payment on a particular club when it comes to the licensing regime.
Lucy Frazer
I will press on, as I have now answered five times on parachute payments.
We will achieve our goal through the new licensing regime, under which all clubs in the top five tiers of English men’s football will need a licence to operate as professional football clubs. The regulator will have powers to monitor and enforce requirements on financial regulation, club ownership, fan engagement and club heritage protection, as well as setting a corporate governance code of practice and having the power to prohibit clubs from joining breakaway competitions.
Dr Luke Evans
It is fantastic that the top five leagues will have to have a licence. Will the Secretary of State comment on the resources that will be necessary to put that in place for the season? This is a big undertaking, and considerable resources will be needed to monitor what is going on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I know that some colleagues who are intervening might not be seeking to catch my eye later. I remind colleagues that if they do intervene, it is customary for them to stay for the entire speech.
Lucy Frazer
The Government are very conscious of the impact on clubs, which is why we are giving them time to prepare for the measures we are bringing into play.
On top of the new licensing system, the regulator will introduce a new strengthened owners and directors test to make sure that a club’s custodians are suitable, and to protect fans from irresponsible owners. This responds directly to growing concerns about financial mismanagement in football, particularly illicit finance, as well as to fans fighting back against owners at clubs like Blackpool and Charlton Athletic. The regulator will also bring in new, robust financial regulation to improve the financial resilience of clubs across the football pyramid.
As members of this House will be all too aware, a lack of financial resilience is one of the key risks to clubs’ futures. Giving the regulator powers to oversee financial plans and to step in to require clubs to beef up their financial resilience, where it has concerns, will prevent clubs from facing cliff-edge situations like we recently saw at Southend United. That will not mean that all clubs have to break even. We know that striving for success can come at a cost and that this ambition makes the game so exciting, so we welcome sustainable, sensible investment. What we cannot have is reckless overspending, irresponsible risk taking and inadequate funding. That is why the regulator will look at each club’s plans and how they are funded, and ensure that clubs have the resources to manage their risk taking. No longer can we have short-term actions jeopardising a club’s long-term sustainability.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has mentioned fan engagement a couple of times. Fans increasingly feel as though they are not being listened to by their clubs. The fan-led review, which she has also referred to, made a series of recommendations in 2021 to give fans a real say in how their clubs are run. Will she be clear as to how the Bill will ensure that clubs are effectively and properly engaging with their fans and that fans’ voices are not being ignored?
Lucy Frazer
The Bill identifies a number of things that we know are important to fans, including heritage assets such as the colour of shirts, badges and the location of a club’s stadium. We know that those are the things fans care about. The Bill ensures a proportionate approach, because we know that engagement with different fans at different clubs, which have very different measures in place, will require us to take a proportionate, case-by-case approach. The regulator must ensure a level of engagement with fans, particularly on the issues that I am identifying, but we also want to ensure that it works for the clubs. Therefore, it will be for the regulator to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken.
I was about to go on to discuss that aspect, because we will be setting a minimum standard of fan engagement, and requiring clubs to seek the approval of their fans for changes to those things I mentioned in order to comply with the strong existing protection for club names. We know that most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans, consciously engaging them in decisions about the club’s heritage. However, there have been some notable exceptions, as we have seen at Cardiff City and Hull City, whose fans have had to battle to bring back or keep their club’s colours, badge and name.
As I said, the regulator will also protect fan interests with the requirement for clubs to seek its approval for any sale or relocation of their home ground. The stadium a club plays in is not only of significant value to fans; it can be the club’s most valuable asset, and it is only right that a club seeking to relocate has to demonstrate that such a move would not significantly harm the heritage of the club.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The regulator is asked to balance the financial sustainability of the club with heritage concerns and to make an either/or decision, under its purposes. In that scenario, could the regulator decide to allow a club to move if it felt it was best for the club’s future sustainability, even if the fans objected?
Lucy Frazer
Yes, that is right; the regulator has to take into account the views of fans and look at the proposals. If it considers the proposals to be good, that change can take place.
Under the new regulator, fans will no longer face the prospect of seeing their club signing up to ill-thought-out proposals, such as the European super league, which several Premier League clubs tried to join in 2021. The House was united in recognising that those proposals for the new competition were fundamentally uncompetitive and would have undermined the football pyramid, against the wishes of fans. This regulator will prevent that kind of closed-shop league from ever getting off the ground.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I respect what the Secretary of State is trying to do, but there is a huge inequality of arms between billionaire owners of clubs and fans’ organisations. I have been the MP for Queens Park Rangers for nearly 20 years, but my small borough also contains Chelsea and Fulham, and in my political lifetime all three of those clubs have faced either being folded up by greedy owners or losing their ground in perpetuity. I do not see what in the Bill is going to prevent that from happening in the future.
Lucy Frazer
All the measures in the Bill, cumulatively, will ensure that clubs are well managed and run; therefore, they will be there and will not go into financial insolvency and administration, which decimates communities. All the measures we have set out, be it the owners and directors test, or the measures to ensure that clubs have a financial plan, will ensure that clubs are properly run. We are introducing the Bill to ensure that the situation whereby we have had 64 administrations since the Premier League was founded in 1992 is not continued. We are not saying that clubs are never going to get into financial difficulty, but we are saying that we are going to put a strong framework in place to ensure that all constituents can be confident that their clubs will have a certain level to which their business is run—that they will be run well.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Leyton Orient, in my constituency, with which the Secretary of State is familiar, now have owners who are genuinely dedicated to their welfare. Previously, they were owned by somebody on whom the fit and proper person test had no effect, and that person nearly destroyed the second oldest club in London. Is she confident that the Bill will ensure that such people will not get their hands on clubs such as Orient in the future?
Lucy Frazer
Yes. This Bill is all about ensuring that the owners and directors of clubs are fit and proper people, so that what happened to the hon. Gentleman’s club, which I was at just a few weeks ago, does not happen again.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I will support this legislation because many of the steps it takes are very necessary. I hope it will mean that Worcester City will never leave Worcester again. Much of what I am hearing about the need to protect the financial sustainability of clubs and leagues also applies in the smaller but still important world of rugby union. As the Secretary of State will know, and as the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting next to her, knows very well, Worcester Warriors are currently without a place in professional rugby. If this legislation succeeds, will she consider applying it to other sports, or introducing legislation for other sports, where that is required to sustain opportunities in the professional game?
Lucy Frazer
As my hon. Friend knows, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have spent time looking at the issues in rugby, and continue to do so. We are setting out what we hope will be a strong financial framework for football. This is being watched closely by other countries that are looking into what they will do in football. Of course if other sports want to look into this, they can.
I move on to the backstop power. Obviously, broadcast revenue is a hugely important source of income for clubs up and down our top-tier football leagues, but the current distribution of revenue across the top five divisions is not sufficient, and football has not been able to come to a suitable new arrangement. Not only does that contribute to problems of financial sustainability, but it can have a destabilising effect on the sport. To avoid that in future, the regulator will have new, targeted backstop powers to help ensure a sufficient flow of money. However, those powers are intended only as a last resort, and can be triggered only if certain conditions are met. The backstop mechanism has been designed with the industry and leading experts to give football incentives to reach a timely compromise, thereby delivering the right outcomes while minimising costly regulatory involvement.
The final part of the regulator’s job is improving the corporate governance of clubs. We will establish a football club corporate governance code, and will require clubs to report regularly on their corporate governance, setting out how they have applied the code and why that is suitable for their circumstances.
Damian Collins
The language in the Bill reflects the language on corporate governance in the Companies Act 2006, but there “corporate governance” includes the relationship that a board of directors has with not only the component parts of the business, but the employees. Should it not be inherent in the Bill that the corporate governance code should suggest how clubs can maintain high player welfare standards?
Lucy Frazer
We looked closely at precedents elsewhere, particularly in regulatory fields, when forming the basis of the Bill. We have always been conscious that we are regulating in a commercial space, and that football clubs are businesses. The premier league is world leading. We are regulating because football clubs have failed to solve these issues themselves. What we do not want to do through this Bill is over-regulate, including in areas in which we would not be regulating but for this Bill. We are trying to strike the right balance. That is why the Bill, notwithstanding questions that have been put to me in this House, focuses on financial regulation. Importantly, it does not interfere with the game, or with how players are looked after. The leagues have a role to play, and they should be primarily responsible for running the game.
Valerie Vaz
Do the regulators have sufficient power to intervene if some of the owners are servicing debts in other areas of their company?
Lucy Frazer
The regulator will have strong powers to look at owners and directors tests, and at financial plans. They will have powers that are designed to ensure the financial sustainability of football. The question that would arise, I suspect, in the right hon. Member’s case is whether that issue was interfering with a particular football club.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being very generous with her time. I thank her for mentioning Cardiff City. I hope to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye later and talk some more about them.
One reason why the Government regulate in the commercial space and in business is to promote competition. In the White Paper, the Government said that the scale of parachute payments can distort competition in the championship and encourage greater financial risk-taking by clubs not in receipt of them. If the regulator has no power in this sphere, how will we ensure that the pyramid is a reality, rather than it becoming ever more difficult to climb?
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the concerns raised about parachute payments and the distortion of competition. On the backstop powers, parachute payments have been included because of the way that the backstop mechanism works; two offers are made by the Premier League or by the English Football League. However, that is not to say that parachute payments are completely ignored. The regulator will look at the state of the game in a holistic way. Also, it is not to say that if the parachute payments affect the running and finances of a club, the regulator has no ability to look at those payments.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Secretary of State said something very important about looking at precedents for regulation in other areas. Certainly, one reason why I am in the Chamber today is my love of the game; although I recognise that there are financial matters that need regulation, that is not the whole of the issue. My concern, and that of many of my constituents, is about the matter being treated simplistically, as if there was just one set of financially related problems, without consideration for community ties, the involvement of fans and so on. When she looked at other examples, did she find anything that managed to crack that nut, or that captured that nuance?
Lucy Frazer
There does not need to be a nuance. The whole point of this legislation is to protect fans, communities and clubs. At the heart of that is making sure that clubs are financially sustainable. None the less, in the legislation, we also have measures to ensure fan engagement on the things that fans care deeply about—the heritage, for example. I cannot overstate the point that although we want to protect the premier league, which is an important, world-leading asset, we also want to protect fans and communities, and that is what this legislation is all about. Taken together, the new measures and the carefully considered remit of the regulator will help us to safeguard clubs, protect the interests of our fans and avoid unnecessary and excessive regulation.
The vast majority of our clubs are run well and live within their means. I am confident that those clubs and their owners will recognise that the Bill, and the new regulator, will allow us to put football on a solid basis for years to come. The Bill will preserve and enhance all the things that we love about our national game, and I commend it to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
May I start by saying how good it is to see the Bill receive its Second Reading? Many people have been campaigning for it for many years, and as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, it has strong cross-party support. A lot of people—both inside and outside the Chamber—have put in a lot of work. Sadly, weeks, months and, I am afraid, Secretaries of State have gone by, but I am glad to see it here at last.
Since I was given the honour of serving in this role, I have met fans, clubs, representative leagues, governing bodies and special interest groups, and I want to thank them all for their time and expertise. I know that they are following our proceedings closely. I also thank the civil servants at the Department, who I know will have put in painstaking work to get us to this point. They deserve our appreciation, and I hear that same point being made by those on the Government Benches.
This new law will not fix all of football’s problems, nor is it designed to. I believe that it can be transformative, if things are done right both during its passage through Parliament and in the crucial implementation phase. The prize could be greater financial sustainability across the whole football pyramid, and, crucially, fans having a greater say in how their clubs are run. It could be those things, but it is up to us to make sure that it is. That is what fans deserve, and what Labour has called for in our last three election manifestos. We Opposition Members are therefore absolutely committed to passing this Bill into law, and to making it work. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to change the game that this country loves for the better. We must all realise the responsibility that we have to make a success of it.
Football is part of what it means to be British. It reaches across borders. It is part of our global brand. It brings us together. Yes, it sometimes brings crushing disappointment, but it also brings us joy. We watch with our families and friends at the local, in the stands or in our living room. We cheer and chant with strangers in stadiums, and together, we sit on the edge of our seat with nervousness. Labour will never take the magic of football for granted. It deserves our attention and our hard work.
Football is also an economic powerhouse. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has clearly set out, Labour’s No. 1 mission is to go for growth. The premier league and its clubs contributed more than £4.2 billion in tax in 2021-22 and supported more than 90,000 jobs. The English Football League clubs contribute so much to our country’s finances, to jobs, and also to joy. The next Labour Government want to invest—in hospitals, in schools, in repairing the damage done by the last 14 years, and in making sure that every child gets a great experience of sport and physical activity at school. That is why football’s contribution to public funds is so important to us, and it is why we will focus on economic growth. Labour will support football up and down the pyramid to grow sustainably, and to create even more jobs, as well as joy. I say “sustainably”, because Labour believes it is important that the whole football pyramid shares in the success of the game.
England leads the world in its system for football. The English pyramid is built on competition. The fans’ love of the game was never more clearly demonstrated than when they overwhelmingly rejected the close competition model of the proposed European super league. That set in train the fan-led review by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) and led to where we are today, but there is so much more work to do.
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend mentioned the fan-led review. Does she agree with me that the women’s game, which is out of scope of the Bill, is growing exponentially, and that there is scope for the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), in a new role, to look at the women’s game and see whether we could have some regulation there?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She rightly pays tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, although Karen Carney has also made a substantial contribution in leading the Carney review. I read the review with interest—it was great—and I believe my right hon. Friend may be aware of it. It is certainly worth Members giving it a detailed read; it deserves all of our attention. I am really proud of the fact that the English women’s game is growing so strongly and so well, and that it is inspiring so many women and girls to get active and get fit. The work of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, combined with the Carney review, sets in train exactly what my right hon. Friend is looking for: strength in our women’s game, which deserves it and deserves our admiration. It is bringing in new audiences all the time, which I think is fantastic.
Thirty years ago, English Football League revenues were 75% of the Premier League’s; today they are just 6%. The gap then was £11 million; it is now £3 billion. It is not that that income is not distributed from the Premier League—it is. It is because increasing amounts are spent on parachute payments, which are made to clubs relegated from the premier league for up to three seasons. I respectfully remind the ministerial team that it was the Government’s own White Paper that recognised the scale of these payments and that they can have unintended consequences.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend referred to parachute payments. Does she feel that the inclusion of the clause that prohibits the parachute payments as “relevant revenue” is already prejudging the outcome of the state of the game review? It is excluding them to start with, rather than leaving the question open until the review is done.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. It is so important that the state of the game report leads the way, and that the regulator is allowed to look at the evidence and have the scope to intervene where that is necessary. I fear that the Secretary of State may inadvertently have confused the issue in her earlier remarks, although I think she began to clarify it. I would be grateful if the Minister could further clarify it in his summing up, as there is some remaining confusion.
Mr Betts
I certainly think that if we do not sort this issue out today, we must at least have some time in Committee to try to untangle what clause 55 actually means. I thought the Secretary of State said that the parachute payments were in play in the discussions about distribution of funds within football until it gets to the backstop, when they are taken off the table. It is almost being said that if the Premier League does not reach an agreement with the EFL until the point of the backstop, the Premier League will in effect have a veto over parachute payments being changed. That is what is being said, and I think that position really needs to be changed when we are in Committee.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Like other colleagues, he is so knowledgeable about the detail of this Bill. I urge the Government to consider what has been said in a constructive spirit. Everybody present wants to get to the bottom of this confusion. We want to make sure that football and the regulator have the tools they need to grow sustainability—a key word which the Government have themselves used. The confusion about parachute payments is worthy of further attention, because there is so much money involved. They also have the distorting effect that the Government’s White Paper rightly identified.
If we do not look at this issue, we risk distorted competition in the championship by encouraging greater financial risk taking by the clubs that do not receive those payments. We know that that can result in an over-reliance on owner funding, which again is simply not always sustainable. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, clause 55(2) excludes parachute payments from any order by the regulator on revenue distribution. I gently say to the Government that, as there seems to be some contradiction or possible confusion, we would like that cleared up. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more in his summing up about how the money currently used for parachute payments could make more impact and perhaps be shared more widely, whether he has examined that in detail and to what extent he feels the current terms of the Bill are satisfactory.
Dr Evans
Part of the problem is that football is inherently risky; the very nature of what a club does is in order to get promoted. If, in trying to engineer some sustainability from the point of view of people investing in a club, Derby County had been promoted, the model would have been deemed to have worked, but it failed and so did the club. How would Labour facilitate individuals from across the globe investing in the best leagues in the world, while making sure that clubs such as Derby County were protected?
Thangam Debbonaire
I gently point the hon. Gentleman to his Government’s White Paper, because the Bill comes from there. Yes, of course the game is inherently risky—that is part of what makes it thrilling—but we need to be thinking about whether that is a calculated risk that is part of the thrill of the game, or an unintended consequence of a possible market failure. We really need to look at whether there is distorted competition. I gently suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman has not read his Government’s White Paper, he should.
Thangam Debbonaire
Then we really need further discussion in Committee on this issue; it is worthy of such consideration. On calculated risk taking, we need to be clear about when we are taking unnecessary risks and when there are unintended consequences of the way finance is distributed.
Mr Perkins
Surely football club owners should be able to spend the money they have to take such a risk. However, if they are spending money from the future, as Derby County and Glasgow Rangers did, and the risk fails in the current year, they will inevitably go bust. Glasgow Rangers disappeared altogether, and Derby County almost disappeared. Football fans do not want clubs to take that risk, and surely the regulator should be preventing that.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend raises the most important point, which is about how fans feel. There should be no taking of reckless risks and there should be no jeopardising of a club’s future, and that is important. Any business owner—the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned businesses—knows that they have to think about what level of risk they are going to take. Fans are at the heart of football, which is one of the things that makes football special and unique, and what fans want is such an important feature of our discussion.
Steve Brine
I will ask the same question that I asked the Secretary of State, because the hon. Lady could be the Secretary of State this year. I do not know whether she goes to watch football—perhaps she goes to watch Bristol Rovers in her own city—but she will know that, earlier this year Bristol Rovers had the mighty Norwich City at its stadium. It had 10,000 fans for a mid-week FA cup replay, which was really important to the club. Bristol Rovers has called on the FA to reverse its decision to scrap FA cup replays. This Bill is about financial resilience and viability throughout the pyramid, so what is the Opposition’s view of the FA’s decision last week?
Thangam Debbonaire
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who says that the Bill is about financial resilience. Obviously, Bristol Rovers is my local club, and I listen to what it has to say, but I also listen to what fans across the country have to say, and they are clearly very upset about that decision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made his views on this extremely clear, because we really think that replays are part of the game. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has said that replays are an important part of our game, and we can hear that in the reactions of my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, replays are not part of this Bill, and we are focused on financial resilience. He will know how much I have enjoyed being at Bristol Rovers. I was on the terraces only the other week watching them lose to Reading, but that is part of the joy of football—that and the pies—isn’t it?
I want to talk about how revenue is distributed throughout the football pyramid, because that is an important consideration of this Bill. One of the many ways the Bill sets out a future for the regulator is on financial distribution. It is down to the leagues themselves to reach a deal on broadcast revenue distribution, but it saddens us all that, at the moment, a deal still seems a long way off. It seems that there has been something of a breakdown in communication. I have met many of the interested parties and listened to concerns, and I appreciate that this is complex and not easy, but I urge both sides to come to an agreement.
However, if those negotiations cannot result in a deal once the Bill is enacted and the regulator is in operation, the regulator will have the power to select one of the two options put forward by the parties. That important backstop power should be used as a last resort, but it is clearly important that such a power exists. Given how important the backstop is, will the Minister say what work has been undertaken to ensure that that specific part of the Bill works in practice? Is it legally watertight? Are there questions that still have to be answered? From my engagement with stakeholders there seem to be many important questions that still need to be answered and we will be exploring them further in Committee, but will the Minister give us a bit more of an indication at this stage regarding what work has been done and what that will mean in reality?
Proportionality will be key for us all. As many Members across the House have said, we want the game to succeed and to continue in the great future that it has for the whole country. Proportionality is important. With all legislation and regulation we must strike the right balance, and nowhere more so than with the licensing scheme for clubs. That is the mechanism through which a majority of the regulation and enforcement will be delivered, and it is right that the regulator will be able to tailor a club’s obligations proportionately, especially when it comes to clubs in the national league—many hon. Members represent constituencies in which there is a national league team. We support an appropriate transition period, to enable clubs to prepare for this process. We must bring clubs of all sizes into the system in an appropriate way.
Colleagues have also mentioned sanctions. As the Bill stands, the regulator will not be able to impose points deductions on clubs that break the rules. Labour backs that decision, but I know how much this issue matters to colleagues across the House and to fans up and down the country who are understandably devastated when their clubs are hit with points deductions as a result of decisions that the fans have no power over. After the formation of the regulator, the leagues will continue to have their own financial rules, and there is nothing to suggest that points deductions for breaches of the league’s own rules will not continue. Nobody wants to see points deductions for corporate or financial mismanagement, least of all fans. I hope, and I know fans hope, that the regulator and licensing scheme will mean that clubs are more financially sustainable, and that breaches of league rules and the associated points deductions are much less likely. Again, if the Minister would like to address that when summing up the debate, that would be helpful.
Football clubs are the pride of our towns and cities. They are an important part of our civic identity and the heart of our communities. New owners often bring important investment, but I know from speaking with clubs that it is about more than that. It is a big responsibility and honour to be the custodian of a football club, and owners should take that seriously. I know that is how it feels for the owner of my local club, Bristol Rovers.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. One other thing that clubs do through their community arms—in the case of QPR that is QPR in the Community Trust—is regenerate an area. In one of the poorest communities in the country we have Andy Evans and his team. It is big business, and they make a massive contribution to the local community. However, they and the club fear that the poor governance and financial inequality of football puts all that at risk. Is that what is at stake in the Bill?
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is exactly right. So many things are at stake in the Bill, which is why it is so important we get it right. I know Fulham well, and the important work done by football community trusts, supporters clubs, and so many people involved in the game who help to regenerate their communities. However, they cannot do that on their own, or if their club is not sustained financially. That is what is at stake, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I have seen that for myself in what Bristol Rovers does for our local community. I met the owner of my local club recently. It was a pleasure to meet him and to hear from him and fans about the importance of growing the club sustainably and investing in the local community. I was impressed to hear the number of ways that the owner, management and fans have engaged with each other and learned from each other. There is always more to do—I am sure all clubs would acknowledge that there is always more they can do to hear what fans have to say, and what their community trusts are doing, as well as how they can be enabled and supported to do more of what they do so well.
Although the vast majority of owners act in the best interests of their club, some do not. That is why Labour has been calling for new checks on owners and directors. The Bill stipulates that those checks will: look into whether prospective new owners have sufficient financial resources to be a suitable owner; review their finances to ensure they are sound; check whether prospective owners behave with honesty and integrity; and assess officers’ competence and whether an owner’s source of wealth is connected to serious criminal conduct. Again, will the Minister address those points when summing up the debate? What does all that mean in practice? The Bill is not clear whether the tests will be objective or subjective in nature, and some of them appear to be distinctly subjective. How will the tests be conducted and what will the criteria be? Will that issue be addressed in Government guidance or the regulations? Does the Minister expect it to be addressed in the code? I would be grateful if he clarified that.
Damian Collins
The Bill is reasonably clear that the regulator considers not only those rules, but any other rules that it wishes to write into the rulebook. This will give us for the first time ever a subjective test set by the regulator, which can be enforced with statute backing it up.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it is a subjective test. I was asking whether there are any objective tests, because I think that is important in terms of fairness. Where are they objective, where are they subjective? Concepts such as competency can be interpreted both objectively and subjectively, and I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification of what he views as the Government’s position.
Mr Robin Walker
One issue we came across in the huge difficulties that Worcester Warriors went through was that it had a director who was approved on the basis that he had been approved by the footballing authorities. He was approved because he was a practising solicitor, but it turned out he was a disbarred practising solicitor. Is it vital that a regulator has the ability to check information given to it, so that even if people provide misleading information to a regulator, it has the ability to intervene and strike those people off as appropriate directors where necessary?
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman explains exactly why it is so important that the owners and directors test will work. That is why I am addressing these remarks to the Government—it is, after all, their Bill. I would like to know substantially more from the Minister in answer to the questions that I and others have raised.
Fan engagement is crucial and we back fans having a greater say in how their clubs are run. Therefore it is right that the Bill requires that if a club proposes changes to club crests or colours, it has taken reasonable steps to ensure that those changes are supported by a majority of fans. Fan engagement should not be reduced to a box-ticking exercise, and neither should it be one size fits all. Engagement must be meaningful and appropriate, and suitable for each club.
The women’s game is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill, but we would all agree that it has had a stellar few years. It is growing quickly, bringing new crowds to stadiums, and introducing lots of girls to the joys of physical activity. I am determined to see the women’s game grow even more. I have already mentioned that proportionality is a key principle that must be considered during the passage of this Bill. Having listened to what representatives of the women’s have to say, I do not think it wise to introduce regulation to the women’s game before it is ready or unless it is necessary. It is right that there are powers in the Bill to introduce regulation to a league designated by the Secretary of State that could, if necessary in future, include the women’s game. I will be monitoring that closely, in collaboration with representatives from women’s football.
The governance of English football is in a position of uncertainty, and on this Government’s watch that uncertainty has been allowed to carry on far too long. That has been, and continues to be, to the detriment of clubs and their finances. After the passage of this long-awaited Bill and the establishment of the regulator, I hope that football will be able to enter a new period of governance stability. As the Bill progresses, that is what Members across the House should be aiming for, and what fans across the country deserve.
Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I rise, unsurprisingly, in support of the Bill. I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you take a keen interest in Doncaster Rovers, and although you are not able to speak in the Chamber on these matters, you have been a fine advocate for its views during this process. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) not just on completing the marathon on Sunday, but for standing up and sitting down without an audible “oof”? Two days after, that is pretty commendable.
I thank the ministerial team and the long-suffering officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who have worked exceptionally hard on bringing forward this Bill. This detailed piece of legislation has been well worked through to ensure that it moves smoothly through Parliament and is in place as soon as possible. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this issue for many years. I may have chaired the fan-led review, but the truth is that a blueprint for reform was created long before. I went down a Hansard rabbit hole, thanks to James in the Official Report team, and read some fabulous references from days past, including a glorious contribution from the much-missed Alan Keen in 1997 that highlighted:
“The Premier League and the Football Association govern themselves with no appeal beyond their confines.”—[Official Report, 27 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 1094.]
Given last week’s furore over FA cup replays, that still seems apt.
There are too many to list, but the likes of Richard Caborn, Andy Burnham, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), Kevin Miles and his team at the Football Supporters Association, David Bernstein, Gary Neville, Henry Winter and Peter Crouch—no relation—have been vocal campaigners for change. The truth is that for many years, Sports Ministers, including me, have stood at the Dispatch Box with crisis after football crisis and pleaded with the authorities, “Reform yourselves, or Parliament will”, and here we finally find ourselves.
The Secretary of State has already set out the context of this Bill. It is always important to remember that the Premier League asked the Government to intervene when six clubs sought to join the European super league. The pleas led to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson promising a “legislative bomb”. That came on the back of high-profile financial problems in the football pyramid, including the demise of Bury, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has spoken about many times in this Chamber. The fan-led review was the outcome of the request from the Premier League and the regulatory failings to prevent clubs from disappearing from our football landscape and the subsequent massacre of the community ecosystem that supported them. The review was a deep dive into the issues, and I shall remain forever grateful to those who participated in it.
In preparation for this speech, I re-read some of the submissions to the review. It was interesting to read in its submission that the Premier League thought that there could be a use for an institution with “step-in powers” and “a capacity to intervene” should it
“manifestly have failed to uphold rules”.
The submission went on to say that
“such a body could also set the general principles required for standards for governance and transparency, including for financial regulation; strengthen the independent operation of the OADT; support the principles of standards for owners’ responsibilities as custodians; and protect decision making over key issues for fans”.
The same paragraph continued:
“Provided it operated in a proportionate way that respected the benefits of permitted well-run clubs and leagues to be nimble in their decision making and encouraged to innovate and take properly assessed risks, then this could make an important and positive contribution to maintaining and enhancing what is the world’s most dynamic and attractive football environment”.
This Bill is all those things, shaped brilliantly to reflect the words of the Premier League itself about what a great regulator could look like. It leaves many of us scratching our heads as to why the Premier League has spent the past few weeks lobbying to stop the Bill progressing.
I will say a few things about some of the specific clauses in the Bill. Clause 3 sets out to define an “ultimate owner” of a club. That is important, as part of the challenge in the past has been that that has not been as clear as it should. Clauses 5 to 8 set out the objectives and principles of regulation, making clear that the regulator should be nimble in its approach and can oblige good governance and real-time interventions, but is not obliged to guarantee zero failures. However, the Bill makes it clear that the regulator will be time-efficient, consistent and transparent. That is a departure, some might argue, from the current regulation.
Clauses 12 and 13 are key to how the regulator will evolve. Good guidance will be essential to its success, as we have heard in contributions and interventions. I already foresee strong guidance required on the role of fan advisory boards and on fan engagement, such as that set out in schedules 4 and 5, along with certain technical challenges, such as pitch ownership if that is different from club ownership. Timely but thought-through guidance done in consultation with key parties will be much needed if the regulator is to hit the ground running. Equally important is the need not to overload on guidance and create regulation by proxy. The whole point of the regulator is to improve governance and to be open and transparent, yet agile in relation to change.
Clause 26, and in particular subsections (7) and (8), which I refer to in my notes as the Martin Samuel measures—Martin is a journalist, but he would regularly ask me whether the honesty and integrity test would prevent Boris Johnson from running a football club—clarify that the test is defined by crimes under the Serious Crime Act 2015. Offences covered by fixed penalty notices are therefore not relevant, which will be a relief to those involved in football who might have been issued with a speeding fine or other such fine.
Clause 37(2) relates to the regulator having regard to foreign and trade policy objectives. That has become a slight distraction from the argument on the independence of the regulator. With that in mind, I suggest an amendment to the clause to change the word “must” to “may”. It is boringly technical to the outside world, but incredibly important if we are to impress on it the value of the regulator’s independence.
Part 5 of the Bill is an important aspect for the domestic fan base, covering prohibited competitions and the protection of club heritage, including ground disposal. For the fans, it is the soul of the Bill. When we published the review, I explained that its order was crafted like a good album. We put all the chapters about governance first, before we got to the redistribution of revenue. The way I see it is that the Premier League gives a substantial amount of money to the wider pyramid, but without the necessary structures of good governance. It is akin to having the heating on with the windows open. Putting in proper regulatory structures should give the Premier League and its clubs confidence that its money is going to good owners with proper business plans in place and real-time financial monitoring that gives significant protection. The Bill follows that same mindset. We get the structure right, then we distribute the finances, and that is what part 6 of the Bill does.
On part 6, I have some key points to make. First, there is an argument to be had on whether the regulator should have the ability in principle to trigger the backstop. I am sympathetic to that, but it needs to be done carefully. Secondly, although colleagues have focused on parachute payments, clause 55 is drafted so broadly that both domestic and international broadcast revenue could be deemed “relevant revenue” and available for distribution. That is not the case at the moment. I am slightly surprised that the Premier League has not included that in its list of things that it wants to amend. It is important that we seek to clarify precisely what is considered “relevant revenue” at the earliest opportunity. Thirdly, it is essential that we define, either on the face of the Bill or at some point in parliamentary proceedings, the definition of “material change”. What might seem material to the EFL might not seem material to the Premier League.
Fourthly, the powers of the regulator will extend to the national league, as presumably will the redistribution of funding. However, I note that the National League has said that it opposes the regulator. It is in the gift of the Secretary of State to define the reach of the regulator, so she could, if she felt it necessary, remove the national league from the Bill, and in so doing, remove it from the redistribution of finances and instead allow it to continue its existing arrangement via the Football Association.
It is right that we put these powers in the Bill, but it is disappointing that, two years on from the review, the football authorities have not done a deal on distribution. The solid recommendations in the review would have moved this debate much further forward than it is now, but they were ignored, so here we are, with the regulator requiring powers to intervene that were promised over and over again.
Clause 94 means that all fines received are paid into the consolidated fund. Although it may not be popular with the Chancellor, I propose that, in order to ensure that the regulator is deemed independent of Government, that clause be amended so that moneys raised above and beyond the regulator’s costs are diverted directly back into grassroots football, which I am sure would be much appreciated as we look to continue the growth in participation and investment in facilities in the run-up to and long after the Euros in 2028.
I do not wish to test the tolerance of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall wind up. I love football, and although the Premier League continues to cast me and others who support the Bill as the enemies of success, investment, growth and international competitiveness, I would argue that quite the opposite is true. The premier league is one of our finest exports, and nothing in my review or in the Bill changes that. Instead, the Bill protects the pyramid from the vulnerabilities and fragilities that have challenged football over the years. It protects football clubs from owners who forget that they are merely custodians of something greater than a trinket. It serves to protect fans, clubs and entire communities from losing their heart and soul. For those reasons, I hope that the whole of Parliament will come together to support the Bill and get it into statute as quickly as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about Doncaster Rovers. I get the feeling that I speak for the whole House in saying how pleased we are that her work in this area has been recognised appropriately. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!]
Before I call the next speaker, a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute, so my first advice to Members is to try to confine their remarks to about seven minutes. I call Kevin Brennan.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also broadly welcome the Bill. May I add the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to the list of people whom the Secretary of State praised? I was a member of that Committee until the end of last year, and I am glad to see several of its members in the Chamber for Second Reading.
It is a pleasure to speak directly after my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch)—I think I can call her a friend after all these years. I commend her for her work in this area and the terrific speech that she has just delivered. I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything that she said. I know that we are in favour of replays, but it would perhaps be wise of me not to repeat everything she said, so I will try not to, although I commend her for what she had to say.
There are still some who question whether Parliament should be regulating in this area at all. Why should we legislate to regulate football? After all, we do not do that in every sport—although, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) pointed out, there is perhaps a strong case for doing so in rugby union after what happened to his local club and other English premiership rugby clubs. However, in reality, Parliament has a long record of legislating specifically in lots of different areas of football. In fact, my private Member’s Bill—the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill—will have its Committee stage on 8 May, and will, I hope, given its widespread support, make its way into law if we have time before a general election is called. There is a long record of football-specific legislation, so this is not that unusual. Football plays such a huge part in our culture.
Let me say, as the Member of Parliament representing Cardiff West, that although we talk about the English football pyramid, it includes Welsh clubs of course, and has done for well over a century. Football is a huge part of our culture in Wales. In fact, a lot of hon. Members will not know that it is the most popular sport in Wales—more popular even that rugby—helped greatly by the success of our Welsh men’s national football team in recent years, including their reaching the semi-final of the Euros.
Of course, as hon. Members have pointed out, we would not be legislating if football had demonstrated the ability to regulate itself, which many of us—including the late Alan Keen, whom I am glad got a mention in the speech of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford—have called on it to do for many, many years. It is telling that the Bill is now widely welcomed in almost all tiers of football except, as has been mentioned, the Vanarama national league and the higher echelons of the premier league. I completely acknowledge not only that the premier league is the world’s most successful club competition, but that its existence has brought benefit down the football pyramid.
In the first 25 years of the premier league’s existence, its revenues grew thirtyfold while revenues in the second, third and fourth tiers grew more than tenfold. That is the nub of the issue: if we go on as we are without effective redistributive methods, the inevitable consequence is that that the gap between the top and lower tiers would gradually make the pyramid untenable and unworkable. Without a long-term viable pyramid, football at the top will become even more of a cartel than it currently is.
The Premier League’s chief executive told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this year, that he was
“totally accepting of the Bill and the regulator coming in after that Bill.”
As the Bill progresses we should bear that comment in mind, which he said on the record to the Select Committee. We should hold the Premier League to that.
As we have heard during the debate, football should be about competition. Business should be about competition, and regulation is about helping to promote fair competition. That is the role of Parliament, Government and the state in this sphere. In the absence of an agreement between the Premier League and the English Football League, the backstop power of the regulator is an essential tool to ensure fair competition, and so that smaller businesses are not ultimately wiped out by the gradual concentration of resources at the top of the game and the impossibility of making progress in the game without taking the sorts of risks that undermine local clubs, and ultimately led to a number of situations that we have heard about. I do not see how Ministers will be able to convince right hon. and hon. Members that that is possible without the regulator having any powers to deal with pyramid payments. As we have heard, the Government’s own White Paper acknowledged the distorting impact that they have on competition. If the Bill is about fair competition, that has to be dealt with.
I want to mention my own club Cardiff City—hon. Members would not expect anyone not to mention their own club. Its stadium is located in my constituency and its recent history has contributed to some of the clauses in the Bill, particularly around fans’ rights. Cardiff City has been very successful during my 23 years in Parliament. It has been in the premier league twice, reached the FA cup final, and lost to Liverpool on penalties in the league cup final, but as is well known, some years ago a new owner, Vincent Tan, decided to change the club’s colours from the traditional blue to red, believing it to be a colour that brought good fortune. If hon. Members can imagine, for a football club universally known as the Bluebirds, the switch to red was somewhat problematic for the fans.
I welcome the fact that the owner changed his mind, and that the Bill would not allow that sort of thing to happen without the involvement of the fans. I can confirm that Cardiff City football club welcomes the Bill. I thank the club’s director Steve Borley, who wrote to me about the Bill. He said that
“the game’s fractured governance model and the inequitable distribution of finances”
is increasingly putting the game at risk. That is why the Bill is so important.
The Bill does not make any reference to the players. That is a missing part. The players’ union, the Professional Footballers’ Association, wrote to hon. Members about that, to say:
“As drafted, there is currently no reference to players within the Bill. We think this is a significant omission”.
I would like to hear from the Minister why that is the case, whether the Government would consider the representations from the players’ union to ensure appropriate references to them in the Bill, and reassurances about some of the existing structures that protect the rights of players, which the union is concerned about.
No one here wants to damage the premier league. I simply want my club, Cardiff City, to have a fair chance of playing in the premier league again. I hope that the Bill will go some way—hopefully improved, strengthened and amended—to ensure a healthier future for football.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I also rise to welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I have to admit that we on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were wondering whether this day would ever come, but the Government appear to have been inspired by the mighty Portsmouth football club, who last week secured victory and promotion to the championship with a last-minute goal. It is edge-of-the-seat sporting drama like that that makes British football the best in the world, right from the very bottom to the top—from the millionaires at the top of the premier league to grassroots clubs such as Gosport Borough, who have treated fans to a romping season. They play in the southern football league and sit tantalisingly in the promotion zone. Of course, there is also Fleetlands FC, who are pushing for promotion in division 1 of the Wessex league.
Here in Parliament, we have also been kept on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting this Bill that could potentially reshape the landscape of football governance. Over the past few years, instability off the pitch, not the action on it, has increasingly grabbed the headlines. Soaring levels of debt have led to the collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, an experience shared by so many fans in communities up and down the country devastated by the demise of their beloved clubs. The debt problem is getting worse: premier league clubs have reported staggering losses of over £1.2 billion over the past 12 months alone, and the figures in the championship are looking just as shocking, with Leicester losing £90 million in 2022-23.
Fans of clubs such as Everton and Reading are sick of seeing them mismanaged through the reckless decision making of irresponsible owners. Just last week, the House heard of the pain of Torquay United fans, whose club has entered into administration following years of flawed business plans. Unreliable owners who do not have the interests of their club or its fans at heart, and are prepared to play fast and loose with their finances and their future, should be held accountable. As a lifelong Pompey fan, I feel their pain: after a series of disastrous owners, it took a fan-led buy-out in 2012 to save our club, demonstrating that our fans were literally prepared to pay up in order to stay up—or, in fact, to stay afloat—such was their dedication and commitment.
The failure of English football’s wealthiest clubs, those in the premier league, to agree a financial distribution deal is putting the fabric of our national game at risk. This situation has dragged on for far too long, and it has been especially disappointing to see the Premier League spending time and money lobbying MPs and peers against the Bill, rather than lobbying its clubs to secure a fair deal for English football. Decisions are repeatedly being made in the interests of the top of the football pyramid without a thought for the vital ecosystem that generates its lifeblood. Scrapping FA cup replays may be welcome in some quarters, but once again it is a characteristically messy number, denying lower-league sides that all-important financial boost. We need a change of tactics, so I know that fans across the country will welcome these plans to introduce a regulator and attempt to bring some stability to the game.
Of course, that is not to say that the new independent regulator will be the silver bullet that the Government have sometimes presented it as. The problems faced by football are extensive and complex, and there are still some areas where I would like to see more clarification and further work as the Bill progresses. I will talk through a couple of those now.
Widening financial distribution across the football pyramid will be the ultimate test of the Bill. Last year, our Committee urged the Premier League and the EFL to urgently agree a new deal to redistribute a higher proportion of revenue throughout the football pyramid. We recommended that in the absence of such a deal, the Government should expedite their plans to establish a regulator with the power to mandate a solution. I am pleased to see that the Bill aims to address this issue by giving the independent regulator the backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcast revenue, but that power is subject to certain thresholds being met, and it excludes the controversial parachute payments within the pot that we have already heard about. We need reassurance that the regulator has the teeth to trigger its own backstop powers and impose a fair settlement, when and where it deems necessary and without any undue delay. We also need an indication from the Government of how the regulator will curb the reckless spending of clubs trying to keep up with those in receipt of parachute payments.
Enhanced financial regulation across the football pyramid is really welcome. It will improve the resilience of clubs, encourage sensible financial decisions and ensure that risks are mitigated. However, given that the regulator will not oversee regulations such as the Premier League profitability and sustainability rules or the squad cost controls that are set to replace those rules, the Government need to provide clarity on how both systems will work alongside each other and reassurance as to why they deemed it unsuitable for the regulator to take on this responsibility.
When it comes to owners, I am really pleased to see that the regulator will establish a new, strengthened owners and directors test to ensure that a club’s custodians are suitable for the role. I welcome the fact that the Bill confers enforcement powers on the independent regulator to protect clubs from any harm that an irresponsible owner or officer might cause and to be able to remove them, but we need further detail on what precisely will happen to those clubs that have an unsuitable owner removed. We need to understand how the regulator would remove another potential Dai Yongge from Reading without compromising the future of the club and ultimately punishing its fans. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Bill will safeguard clubs that find themselves in the position of having no owner, no financial safety net to keep them going and potentially no prospective buyers on the horizon.
We have already heard from Members that football is nothing without its fans, and I am pleased to see the Bill placing fan engagement requirements on the clubs as well as requiring them to comply with heritage protections and to seek approval for the sale or relocation of their home ground. But the Bill does not go quite so far as requiring fans to have a golden share, as recommended in the excellent fan-led review led by my hon. Friend—and real-life friend—the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch). At this point, it would be terribly remiss of me not to add my congratulations to her and the whole team who have put an enormous amount of brilliant work into getting the Bill to this stage. As the Bill progresses, I want to be sure that it provides a way for fans to share their concerns about their club with the regulator and to know that they will not be dismissed. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has agreed to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the chair of the independent regulator once the Government have a preferred candidate, and I expect that this will be one of the first questions we will be asking them.
Ultimately, there are two main questions that I want to see answered by this legislation. First, does it deliver for football and its fans? Secondly, to what extent will it prevent some of the distressing times that clubs like Reading are currently undergoing? There is more to be done on the Bill—and indeed the guidance that goes alongside it—to ensure that it fully meets those aims. We cannot overlook the huge economic value, the sense of community cohesion, and the moments of both local and national pride that football gives us; nor can we ignore the vital importance of a football pyramid that delivers at every single level. I know that some, including the Premier League, have concerns about unintended consequences, so the Select Committee has written to them to give them a chance to set out exactly what they would change—because there have been plenty of chances for the sceptics to prove that this Bill is not needed. Given that this is one of the biggest overhauls in the history of English football, we must do it right.
I congratulate Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), on getting the Bill to this stage. I look forward to his responses and to hearing what more can be done to secure a clear win—and, just like Pompey, can we do it well before the end of the season?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am putting in place a seven-minute time limit to ensure that everybody gets as equal a chance to speak as possible.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). Following the fan-led review by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) in 2021, I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on a petition on this issue. I said in that debate, and I reiterate today, that the current disparity between the rich and poor and the selfish nature of the elite clubs need remedying. This Bill does not do justice to some of the issues that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised in her report, particularly with regard to grassroots football, women’s football, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities, but I am sure that those issues will be covered by later legislation in due course.
Football in this country has become a story of the haves and have nots, and regulation is desperately needed to ensure the health and prosperity of the game at all levels, not just in the premier league. I therefore welcome the Bill, and support the creation of a single, independent football regulator. At a time when the game has become an international sporting juggernaut and a global commodity with revenues greater than ever before, the financial and long-term sustainability of the football pyramid has never been more at risk. Too many historic clubs are on a cliff edge, about to fall off it and face the fates of historic clubs like Bury, which has disappeared, and Bolton and Wigan, which have struggled since.
This is why new legislation is crucial. Fans need a greater voice in the running of their clubs, and there needs to be a better means test for owners and directors to ensure fiscal sustainability and to root out the financial mismanagement that has plagued too many clubs, through the actions of foreign investors or those of domestic owners who have done the same things. An independent football regulator should ensure that English football continues to serve the interests of regulated clubs, while also contributing to the economic and social wellbeing of the local communities associated with those clubs. However, a regulator should also be a watchdog, and a watchdog without any teeth will not be much of a regulator, which is why it is essential for this regulator to have the powers to do its job properly.
The financial gap between the Premier League and the English Football League has reached a critical point. Thirty years ago EFL revenues were 75% of the Premier League’s, but today the proportion is just 6%. The gap then was £11 million; it is now £3 billion. At this pace, the football pyramid is untenable and the financial gulf between the two leagues—and across all levels—continues to worsen, but there is no doubt that there is enough money in the collective pot to achieve sustainability at all levels if the game’s revenue is distributed in the right and fair way, coupled with proper governance and organisation.
As it stands, the Premier League continues to rule the roost when it comes to English football, but some top-flight clubs have shown that they are incapable of self-regulation. We need only look at some recent financial breaches to see that the Premier League is nowadays not in a position to self-govern and regulate the sport when it struggles to keep its own house in order. Some have reaped the financial rewards without showing any concern or desire to preserve the health of the sport outside their own needs and ecosystem. Only an independent regulator will be able to provide proper oversight, regulate clubs’ behaviour, and intervene when necessary to ensure that they act responsibly.
The Bill also provides targeted backstop powers to allow the regulator to step in when it comes to the allocation of broadcasting revenue between the Premier League and the rest of the football pyramid, if needed. On the face of it that is fine, but clause 55 requires the “specified competition organisers”, the Premier League and the English Football League, to enter into a period of
“mediation in connection with the distribution of relevant revenue received”
by one of them, and if they are unable to reach agreement, the independent regulator
“may make an order as to the distribution of that revenue.”
However, in the Bill as drafted, that does not apply to certain circumstances in which the relevant revenue referred to in clause 55(2)(b) does not include parachute payments, which are defined as payments made directly to newly relegated clubs.
As was mentioned earlier, this cannot be fair, and it deliberately excludes the English Football League from making its case that the parachute payments are disadvantaging and distorting the revenues of championship clubs as a whole. The payments are not just a parachute meant for a soft landing; they are a ladder leading back to the premier league for most of the clubs that have already been relegated. That is clear from the current position of the championship division: Leicester City, Leeds United, Southampton and Norwich City occupy four of the top six spots. Incidentally, Norwich has been relegated from the premier league six times since its formation in 1992. This exposes the fact that the payments are a ladder back to the premier league, to the disadvantage of others elsewhere in the championship division.
Preston North End, my constituency club, which has its own place in history as a founding member of the football league, joins me in believing that a regulator is the only option to underpin both sustainability and competitiveness within the financial distribution of the football pyramid. As we speak, Preston are sitting in 10th place in the championship table. They have never played in the premier league—the only former top-flight first division champions never to have done so. They have a wage bill in the region of £16 million. How can they compete against the likes of Southampton—a club that was relegated in 2023 with a wage bill of approximately £88 million, which is six or seven times that of Preston North End?
As a lifelong football fan, I believe that this House not only has the opportunity but, more importantly, the obligation to create much needed reform in the game through a transformative Bill that safeguards all clubs for decades to come.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I rise to support the Government’s plans, although until fairly recently I had considerable reservations about them. It took some time for me to come round and accept the fact that we should have a regulator. On balance, I think that is the right thing to do, as long as it is done in a limited and careful way. I have asked myself if we really want a Government-appointed regulator to oversee our national sport, or indeed any sport. Will other regulators follow? Will there be mission creep? Very probably. Will the Government of the day get the blame for the decisions of the regulator? Almost certainly. That said, we must ensure that our clubs, which are a much valued part of many of our local communities, continue.
It is undeniable to fans who have loved football for as long as I have that the game has changed since it became truly commercialised in the 1980s and, particularly, the 1990s, with the arrival of the Premier League. The scale, particularly when considering the money involved, is difficult to comprehend. Given this trend, the type of individuals and organisations we see taking ownership of clubs has changed dramatically. As the game has become a truly global phenomenon, some owners have become somewhat detached, to say the least, from their club’s supporters. As fans know, that is one of the biggest mistakes any owner can make. We saw that with the proposals for the Euro super league, not that that concerns a Grimsby Town fan such as me. We need to preserve the pyramid that ensures the Grimsby Towns of this world, whose Blundell Park ground is in my Cleethorpes constituency, are allowed to continue.
I will break off from talking about the Bill to have my say on the replay issue; it would be remiss of me not to. To me, the magic of the FA cup goes back many years. I can remember, as I am sure one or two other Members can, when the draw was always at lunchtime on a Monday. The BBC football correspondent, Bryon Butler, would speak in a hushed voice and we would hear the rattle of the balls as the numbers came out. Replays are part of the same magic as the draw. We have heard much about the game between Coventry and Man United on Sunday; that it was decided on penalties was rather sad. Would it not be great if they were playing again on Wednesday evening, or whenever?
Perverse incentives in modern football structures can lead to poor governance and unstable clubs. Many clubs are now making regular losses and borrowing at debt levels that they cannot afford. These are not the indicators of a healthy sport and only serve to make clubs financially vulnerable, worsening the environment they operate in and creating uncertainty for fans. As Kevin Miles, the Football Supporters’ Association’s chief executive, said, the Government’s proposals represent a
“once in a generation opportunity to reset the finance and regulation of football”.
As I mentioned at the start of my comments, I approached the issue with some reservations, but having studied the Government’s proposals, I think they have struck a fine balance between the benefits and potential costs of introducing such a regulator. Mind you, I am sure that there will be some, perhaps minor, changes as the Bill goes through Committee, but I now support the main thrust of the Bill.
On balance, the Government have been careful in their approach to how they intend to regulate, ensuring that it will be proportionate to the clubs’ individual circumstances according to factors such as league, club size and financial health. By empowering the regulator with a narrow focus, we can prevent overreach while ensuring that clubs remain financially stable. I welcome the fact that the regulator’s powers to ensure financial sustainability through redistribution of broadcast revenue, for example, will apply only in extremis.
Fans are highly attached to their club’s image, whether that be the name, the badge or the colours. It is therefore welcome that owners will have to consult on such changes. We heard earlier about the incident at Hull City a few years ago when the owner tried to change the name and so on, which certainly did not go down well with fans. That was just one controversial element of the Allam family’s ownership of the club, with a frequent trend being the owner’s inability to understand traditions, which are so important to fans.
The Secretary of State actually came to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to launch the policy, which was only right given the true status of Grimsby Town, who thankfully have been saved from relegation to the national league yet again. As she rightly noted:
“Football is nothing without its fans.”
I applaud her determination and that of the Sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to put fans back at the heart of the game. The Government’s proposed regulator will ensure the sustainability of our nation’s favourite sport and that the connection to fans is maintained, while not changing the fundamentals of the game itself. On that basis, I am happy to support the Bill.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in the Bill, which builds on the excellent fan-led review conducted by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch). It will give fans more of a say in how clubs are run and the wider premier league redistribution of broadcast revenues—what is not to like? The core of the Bill is financial stability. We do need an independent regulator to stand up for the interests of smaller clubs and the EFL against globalisation, which is seen in not just Americanisation but oligarchs and sportswashing. I welcome the Bill, but, of the Crouch recommendations, the Government have regrettably opted out of action on equality, diversity and inclusion.
Against a backdrop of Bury going under, a pandemic that no one predicted and the spectre of the European super league thwarted for now, it is notable that, since 1992, 16 clubs have gone into administration. How much will the Bill address? It is too late for Bury; will Reading, on the brink of extinction, be next?
We need a regulator with appropriate teeth to take away licences from rogue owners—those venture capitalists who think about balance sheets, profit margins, asset stripping and destroying clubs—because football clubs are so much more than simply businesses. I know that from the work done locally by QPR and Brentford, and the email that I got from Professor David Gilbert of Ealing. He described how his family have been Reading fans since 1871 and told me how Dai Yongge is not co-operating with the fans and has destroyed clubs in China and Belgium. After the pitch invasion against Port Vale, he said:
“I was at the game and the protests that led to the abandonment…I was watching from the seats that my late mother and brother watched from until they died…my grandfathers supported from the 1920s…I have been going since 1969. That experience is not atypical of supporters in many towns and communities across the country, who have little or no say in the fate of their clubs.”
The club may be saved—I think there is an American bid at the moment—but that is a perfect case study or a textbook example in the future of why we need more protections, because of the collective social and cultural heritage of our clubs. However, the relationship between the English Premier League and the EFL and the distorting effect of parachute payments, which have massively unbalanced the beautiful game, are not addressed in the Bill. Although there are clauses on regulatory powers to force a financial redistribution of revenue, the Bill seems to think only of broadcast revenue.
It would be easy to knock the Premier League for its hospitality towards MPs—it was in here late last night, wining and dining people—and its attempts to push the free market, but in recent years our clubs have done us proud in Europe, in all-England finals in 2019 and 2021, and in 2023. They have changed football’s reputation from how I first remember it in the 1980s, when it was synonymous with fans behaving badly, racism, hooliganism and violence. They have cleaned up their act. Football brings soft power and tourism, but I worry that the value of the FA cup, which used to be such a big thing, is being lost with all these European competitions.
We need some sort of transparency and consistency, and a clear system on points deductions: why are Everton falling foul repeatedly, and not Man City? Why the mismatch between different systems and different leagues? I welcome the focus in this Bill on the football pyramid, which often seems, as Diana Ross would say, “Upside Down”. My son gave me a figure of £1.7 million a day generated by Man United, but that is not finding its way down to the bottom of the pyramid.
As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said in chapter 6 of her review:
“Football needs to improve equality, diversity and inclusion in clubs with committed EDI Action Plans”
regularly addressed by the regulator, but that is completely missing from this Bill. We know there are gaps in leadership, ownership and management—and who would benefit from reform? Players, parents and referees would benefit. The figures speak for themselves: the higher up we go, the boardrooms become almost a white male preserve. We know women’s football is increasingly expanding. We could also look at the issue of social class as well. How else will we Kick It Out, as the name of the racism charity demands? Even from a business point of view, in every other sector—civil service, local government, banks, wherever we go—EDI is central. It should not be seen as an add-on, with this patchwork of different systems and plans; we need a level playing field. Kick It Out figures show that racism and misogyny, offline and online, are all up. We need a proper regulatory framework for dealing with those, and I feel we have missed a trick.
The word “fan” appears only 16 times in this 140-page Bill. The Bill stopped short of the golden share veto power that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford recommended. This legislation is fundamentally about finance, but we have heard about the ending of FA cup replays. Brentford, a local team, did well out of them a few years ago, yet now that they are in the premier league, they are all for banning replays. That needs addressing, because it is a big financial incentive to the smaller clubs.
There is also the problem of top teams in tournaments—and it is a problem. Let us not kid ourselves that the FIFA club world cup expansion did not have super league-style motives at its heart. Although that is gone, I think it is trying to come back in disguise, like the proposed champions league reforms. Those have been rejected for now, but let us be wary of all these things.
There will be resistance to change, but we need a truly independent regulator as the Football Supporters Association tells us. I welcome this Bill, but when we have Joey Barton saying women pundits should be banned from ITV, and the awful things that John Yems said, such as the N-word and “curry munchers”, there is a bit missing. The Sports Minister is excellent on this issue—he went to Qatar with a rainbow armband—so perhaps he could tell us in his summing-up what he will do to address it.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to put on record how proud I am of how hard the Minister has worked on this Bill. He is an absolute credit to this Government with what he has done here. The recent events around changes to the FA cup show just how pressing this Football Governance Bill and the establishment of the independent regulator are.
As we consider the implications and potential of this legislation, it is crucial that we approach the task with urgency, recognising how important it is for football clubs up and down our country. Football is not just a game in our country; it is woven into the fabric of all of our communities. The clubs that dot our landscape, from the grand stadiums of the premier league to the intimate grounds of the lower divisions, serve not just as teams to support, but as community hubs and sources of local pride. Yet, despite the critical role that these clubs play, the sustainability of the football pyramid is under significant threat.
The crux of the issue lies in the financial disparities that have grown ever starker over the decades. The Premier League, while a global success, has seen its financial might grow exponentially, far outpacing the rest of the pyramid. That imbalance is not merely a matter of elite success, but a structural issue that endangers the viability of clubs across all levels. Today, EFL clubs operate at a massive loss, collectively losing £471 million during the 2022-23 season alone.
The establishment of an independent regulator, as proposed in the Bill, is a measure long overdue. The regulator would have the authority not just to oversee but to intervene and correct the course, ensuring that financial sustainability is not a mere aspiration but a reality. It would have powers to impose financial solutions that ensure the viability of clubs, reflecting the needs of community clubs across England.
We must also address the need for fair distribution of revenues. As it stands, the financial gulf between the Premier League and the EFL has become a chasm. Reforms in revenue sharing and financial regulations are necessary to prevent smaller clubs from financial catastrophe when they fall from the Premier League, or attempt to compete without adequate support.
In supporting the Bill, we are acting to preserve the soul of football in England. This is about more than business; it is about ensuring that the joy, excitement and community spirit that football brings are not lost to financial mismanagement and unchecked commercial appetites. The Bill presents an opportunity to reform our football pyramid to be both competitive and sustainable. It ensures that clubs can continue to thrive for the benefit of their fans, local communities, and our national game. It aligns with the recommendations of the fan-led review, and responds to the clear need for greater fairness and foresight in our approach to football governance.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my local club, Accrington Stanley, which is one of the 12 founding members of the football league. Although it is famous for the milk advert, what people also remember is that in 1962 it had to resign its position from the football league and subsequently went into liquidation in 1966. That was not common then. Unfortunately, we are now seeing it happen with many of our clubs. I have spoken with the owner of my club, Andy Holt, about this legislation more times than I can remember. He is clear, as am I, that if we are to protect clubs lower down the leagues, we need not only to give them a level playing field, but to provide them with the space to invest in their communities, whether through investment in facilities or working with children and young people. This legislation is required.
I want to talk briefly about the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) on redistributing fines to grassroots communities. I think that is a very good idea. I have seen the impact Accrington Stanley has locally. It really is the heart of the community. It brings the community together and I would hate to think of the counterfactual, where it was no longer viable for the club to continue serving my constituency in the way it does.
I therefore urge my fellow Members to support the Bill, and to stand for fairness, sustainability and the long-term health of English football. Let us ensure that the game we love is protected for future generations not just as a spectacle of sport, but as a cornerstone of the communities we serve.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak today. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has been a superb campaigner for Reading football club, and other Members from across the House.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the Bill, but at the outset I would like to pay tribute to our wonderful club, Reading football club, its players and its fans. The men’s and women’s teams were both relegated last year. As was referred to earlier, that was through no fault of their own. The crisis at the club was due entirely to financial mismanagement by the current owner, Mr Dai Yongge. Despite being relegated, and with the risk of further relegation hanging over them, players and fans have battled through and we hope they have sustained the future of the club.Thankfully, Dai Yongge now appears to be selling the club, and we hope that a brighter future lies ahead. I hope that this Bill will ensure that other clubs do not have to face what Reading have been through, and that football can move on to a brighter future.
When Reading were in the championship, Dai Yongge started his period as the owner of the club by investing in their future. However, his behaviour changed over time, and the story we face is one of a failure to pay wages and, indeed, national insurance. This led to a series of winding-up petitions from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and ultimately to 16 points being deducted. That, rather than anything that happened on the pitch, determined the situation at Reading.
This season, the financial problems have continued. Unfortunately, further points deductions have been made, although we are grateful to the EFL for its decision that they be suspended. In an incredible effort, the players have battled hard and avoided relegation from league one, and we hope they have secured the future of the club. However, the pressure on players, fans and the whole town has been absolutely awful. We have been through, and are still going through, the worst crisis in our club’s history. Reading football club were founded in 1871 and are one of the oldest members of the football league, and their proud history includes getting the highest number of points in the championship—106—having three seasons in the premiership and going on a glorious series of cup runs, including winning the Simod cup in the 1980s and several impressive FA cup runs.
During this period of great difficulty, emotions have run high. Some 1,400 people, including the hon. Member for Bracknell and me, joined a march to the stadium in October, and there have been numerous other protests. Fans simply want their Reading back, and I would encourage Dai Yongge to speed up the sale. As I said, we must ensure that what happened at Reading never happens again. We need a better test for owners and a better assessment of club finances, as mentioned earlier. Above all, we need to ensure that clubs, players and fans are not penalised for the actions of owners, however irresponsible they are.
I have some points to make to the Minister and the Secretary of State. Although I welcome the Bill, I would like far more detail on a number of key areas that I hope we will explore in Committee, particularly the test for owners and directors, the assessment of financial resilience, the oversight of financial plans, and the protection of grounds and training grounds, which is another problem we might face. In Reading’s case, the sale might separate the training ground from the ground, which has caused a great deal of concern and has, I hope, now been resolved.
I hope the Minister will address some of those issues and that they will be explored more fully in Committee. I believe that the Bill is a real opportunity for English football, and indeed for football in Wales, and I hope that we can all look forward to a brighter future for all our football clubs, particularly Reading.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), as I have been watching Reading since 1965 and the last two years have been as miserable a time as any—even if supporting Reading is often through thick and quite a lot of thin.
Like everyone else in the House, I welcome the eventual arrival of the Bill. I pay tribute to Ministers for finally getting to this point, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for her work on the fan-led review. Much of the Bill is welcome and necessary, but it is worth putting it into a historical context. As I say, I grew up watching football in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, when it was terrible. It was described at the time as a slum game in slum facilities. Grounds were crumbling, the fan experience was terrible and there was a huge amount of violence. Because some football fans behaved like animals, all fans were treated like animals, and it was altogether miserable.
Today, however, the top end of football is regarded around the world as one of the best things about this country. I remember a former tourism Minister telling me that the three things that make people like Britain and want to come here are the royal family, the BBC and premier league football, so it is important to put the various legitimate criticisms of things that happen in football into that context. The premier league has done some great things for English football, but this Bill comes from a fan-led review, and every proposal should be assessed as to whether it serves the interests of fans at all levels of the game. We need an independent regulator because the leagues, and therefore the clubs, cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I were both there in 2006 when Reading won the championship, putting four past Derby. What a moment that was. I do not know whether he agrees, but I think the current players and manager are doing a cracking job just to keep the club alive.
Damian Green
I echo that. The fans, the players and the staff have formed a bond of survival against Dai Yongge, which shows the strength of feeling that all football fans have for their club. That is what we want to enhance.
There have been debacles such as the European super league and the increasing number of clubs whose fans have suffered—it is not just Reading, although Reading has featured a lot in this debate because it is the latest example. We hope that no more fans will have to suffer in the way that we have suffered.
The question is whether the Bill will be effective in practice. One issue at the heart of the Bill is financial distribution. How do we distribute the enormous sums generated by the Premier League without killing that golden goose? It is a difficult balancing act. The regulator cannot be a panacea, and it will have to be both tough and smart.
There are specific questions that need answering. First, are the backstop powers sufficient? In the end, the regulator has to choose between a Premier League offer and an EFL demand, and there is certainly an argument to be had about whether the regulator should have powers to make its own settlement, possibly involving other bodies in deciding on what the settlement should be.
We have debated parachute payments, and I confess that I am still slightly confused as to the Government’s attitude and desire towards parachute payments, which are the key to why the championship is a very skewed league. I have been looking at the figures provided by Fair Game, a very good lobbying group. Currently, for every £1,000 of the broadcasting deal, £882 goes to each premier league club, £73.48 goes to championship clubs in receipt of parachute payments and £32.85 goes to championship clubs not in receipt of parachute payments. More than twice as much goes to the clubs with parachute payments as goes to the clubs without parachute payments. That is how we got a skewed league.
The great disparity between the premier league payment, which people might say is fair enough because it attracts the broadcasting money, and the championship payment does not reflect attendances. For every 1,000 people who attended football matches in the 2022-23 season, 497 attended premier league matches and 234 attended championship matches. Championship crowds were just under half of premiership crowds, but the distribution of money to premier league clubs is more than 10 times as much, so it does not reflect what fans are doing.
The next question is how we solve the problem of people like Reading’s owner. He is a reckless owner who is immune to sanctions because he is not in this country. He spent money, broke rules, incurred penalties, lost interest and went away. The only penalties left, because he is ignoring the financial penalty, are points deductions. I agree with the EFL on parachute payments but, frankly, it has been a bit of a chocolate teapot on protecting Reading’s interest. All the EFL has done is deduct points, which just punishes the fans.
What in the Bill will help that? I think the licensing regime will help, because a competent regulator clearly would not let someone like Dai Yongge own a football club in the first place, even though the EFL did. The question still remains of what happens if an owner’s circumstances change, such as if they lose a huge sum of money and cannot afford to support their club any more, or if they just lose interest. They might die, and their family or business associates who take over might not care about the club. What happens then? I would make one suggestion to Ministers, which would involve only a small tweak to the Bill: clause 52 allows the regulator to levy money from every licensed club, so why should some of that levy money not be used to set up a survival fund? Where a completely reckless owner is walking away and leaving a club to go out of business, as Dai Yongge has done in two other countries, such a fund would allow the regulator, over the few months when a club needs to find a new owner, to pay things such as the national insurance that has not been paid at Reading or the wages that were not paid for a couple of months. I accept that would not be a long-term solution, but having a short-term solution would make a huge difference. As the Bill already sets up the possibility of a levy, I suggest extending its possible uses to set up this survival fund, so that if something like this happens again, the new system of regulation will explicitly be able to cope with it.
The introduction of the Bill marks a big step forward and I hope that it survives largely intact. As I, like others, have said, there are improvements to be made, and I urge Ministers at all times to keep the interests of fans at the front of their consideration, because without the fans, there is no point to professional sport.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I declare an interest, as a lifelong Blackburn Rovers fan and a supporter of Kendal Town, who are in the North West Counties football league—I am beginning to fear that one day we might end up playing each other at this rate. To prove that football is more about uniting us than dividing us, I have, accidentally, worn claret and blue today, as a nod to our dear friends Burnley. [Laughter.]
I was at Grange Church of England Primary School last week, where a bright year 5 lad asked, “Tim, what sport do you enjoy the most?”. I nearly said football, but then I realised that I do not enjoy football at all; it makes me completely frustrated and miserable, but it does rule my life and occupy most of my waking moments. It is a hugely important thing, as it binds and creates communities, it creates shared experiences and it helps to build what it is to be English and to be British. So I am a thoroughly proud football fan. I love the game and want to stand in solidarity with all other football fans, even those of teams I do not approve of.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who is back in her place, and the fan-led review, which has underpinned the Bill. My party and I welcome the principles behind it and the independent regulator. We acknowledge that football is integral to our culture and that the whole pyramid is vital to the game. Michael O'Neill, the chairman of Kendal Town—his is an unpaid role at a wonderful club that is doing incredibly well at the moment—has said that the
“top of the pyramid would not exist without the foundations”.
He is absolutely right about that, but the foundations include not just the clubs lower down the pyramid, but the youth game and the Westmorland County FA, and what it does for young people, supporting mental health, building resilience and teamwork, and creating community.
I am supportive of part 3 of the Bill, on licensing, although it is an important moment to do some redistribution, taking a proportionate share from each of the clubs to ensure that we fund the additional requirements of meeting the licensing. Part 4 of the Bill, as we have heard, is about owners and directors. I express my solidarity with the supporters of Reading—we think of Dai Yongge and what he has done to that club and community. Not yet so awful—but watch this space—is what has happened with Venky’s, who own the Rovers. Blackburn Rovers is a club in limbo and the question is whether or not we are a going concern, because of the owners’ plight in the Indian courts. We have to ask ourselves the extent to which part 4 will give the regulator power to deal with the Dai Yongges and Venkys of this world and make them put up, pay up or sell up. Nothing more underlines the powerlessness of the fans than situations such as those, and fans of Bury, Bolton, Hull City and Cardiff City would concur.
Part 5 deals with the duty on clubs and competition organisers. I am going to table an amendment, if I am permitted to do so, to bring back the replays in the FA cup and to restructure things so that all competing teams get an equal vote in deciding the organisation and rules of that cup. This situation is an outrage and nothing more underlines the arrogance and complacency of the Premier League than its thinking it can dictate to the rest of the league and the non-league how that glorious and almost ancient competition will be. If my amendment is successful, the Premier League might get away with one year of no replays, but we will get them back the year after when the whole of the footballing establishment actually gets a vote.
My main concern is on part 6—I will not go through every part of the Bill—and the powers of last resort. I am deeply concerned that we have only partial financial oversight. This is where football fans feel a sense of disappointment, and the Government have been a little weak in this regard. It feels like they have listened to the powerful few rather than the clubs, the fans or the volunteers. The financial powers seem to be restricted to simply being a mediator between the Premier League and the English Football League, and actually the Premier League and the championship when all said and done.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has talked about some of the financial division, and let us look at the allocation. Of every £1,000 received in broadcast revenue, £882 goes to premier league clubs and £32 to championship clubs—that is about enough for Blackburn Rovers to buy another pair of goalkeeping gloves and, by golly, we could do with them. If you go down further, 15p goes to national league north clubs, and a fat zero to anything below the national league. If the pyramid is important, then the foundations are important. I want the regulator to have the power to make sure that the Premier League and the championship do not hog all the money, and that they distribute properly and effectively down the division.
I want to pay tribute to Kendal Town—the mighty Mintcakes, as we are known—because they speak for and represent so many other non-league clubs. Five hundred people a week watch the great team managed by Jimmy Marshall. Everybody at that club is a volunteer. What good could be done by a relatively small amount of redistribution of that money down to that level. Kendal Town have hosted 12 cup finals of various kinds at the Parkside Road ground this year. It costs them £8,000 to maintain that ground, and they get nothing for it. A fairer deal is absolutely essential, and, so far, this Bill is the weakest on that fair financial flow. It is important that the Government get that right beyond Second Reading.
At a time when the division between the divisions has never been greater, I think it is worth paying a bit of attention to the parachute payments. There is a widening not just in quality, but in resource between the premier league and the championship, between the championship and league one, between league one and league two, and between league two and the national league. That reduces competition, entrenches privilege and squashes ambition. One key driver—perhaps the key driver to this division, certainly at the top end of the tables—is the parachute payment, which is a completely unjustifiable disgrace. It is the greatest financial distortion in the game. This Bill ducks that distortion—every football fan has noticed that the Government have ducked that distortion. Therefore, people are deeply sceptical about whether the Government are serious about fairness in the game—
Sir Mark Hendrick
The Government have not only ducked this issue, but the Bill itself contains something explicit that precludes a discussion of parachute payments when it comes to the regulator’s powers.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I agree with him. That explicitly needs to be mentioned in the Bill, and we need to recognise that that is one way to allay the fears of those people who are sceptical about whether the Government are serious about this—as serious as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford clearly is. Have the Government got the interest of the fans at heart? Will they do stuff that is difficult and challenging for those people at the top of the game, or will they have just listened to lobbyists rather than the fans?
In closing, Blackburn Rovers were owned by Jack Walker, the greatest owner of any football club ever. We say that we do not want billionaires in the game, but we will have people like that any day of the week—not just at Rovers, but anywhere else. He loved his club, loved his town and made a massive, massive difference. Today we are owned by Venky’s. It is alleged that, when it took on Blackburn Rovers, Venky’s believed that it was impossible to lose premier league status. It did not realise that a club could go down. Gutted though I am that we went down and got relegated, I am nevertheless glad that Venky’s were wrong: there should be movement between the divisions; there should be competition; and there should be fairness. Football is for the fans, not just for the powerful few. Let us make sure that this regulator, in its financial oversight, is able to ensure that there is genuine fairness from the top to the bottom.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
This debate about a football regulator is quite interesting for me because, in all honesty, when I first heard about it I did not really want one. I did not believe in one from an ideological perspective, or see why we need to regulate sports at all. I always thought the Football Association should be doing that, but I think we have seen—certainly in recent weeks, but really over quite a sustained period of time—that it simply has not done its job, and that also true of the Premier League, the EFL and so on. That is why I think we now have some proposals I can certainly support, and I think they actually strike a very good balance. I pay tribute to the Minister for his work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who did such a fantastic report in the first place.
I am another one of those who are very angry that FA cup replays have been scrapped. Growing up, we always used to dream of lifting the FA cup at Wembley. We would watch the teams in the morning with the buses arriving, and it was a whole-day event. We would have the terrible cup final songs and the story of the non-league clubs in the early rounds, and that is really what it was all about. The diminishing pull of the FA cup for many of the teams at the top has been very sad over the years, but it is still very special for many of our smaller clubs.
We have just heard about Kendal Town, and we have Worksop Town in my constituency, which made the first round of the FA cup this season for the first time in a very long time. We played Stockport County in the first round and did manage to get an equaliser, although we let a few more goals in after that, unfortunately, and never got the replay. That was a special moment, and something many people will remember for the rest of their lives. I will mention the other football clubs in my constituency so that I do not get some stick or a lot of angry emails. We also very proud to have Retford United, Retford FC, Harworth Colliery and SJR Worksop as well.
I am hoping that licensing agreements for clubs are not too onerous and do not place too much of an unfair burden, particularly on smaller clubs, and it is the smaller clubs I am thinking of. They are the ones who maybe cannot afford to employ extra members of staff or will struggle with some of the extra bureaucracy. I think we should give them some time and make sure we do not make any unreasonable demands of them. We do not want mission creep, with the almost public sector-style equality and diversity targets, requirements and endless things that we do not actually need in football. I am very much in favour of light-touch regulation, and I do not want to be putting our teams at a competitive disadvantage to other teams in Europe.
As has been said, the Premier League does do a lot of wonderful things. I have been one of its harshest critics over the years, being a Notts County fan. I cannot see us ever winning the premier league as it stands now. In fairness, we never won the old first division either. In fact, I think we were a founder member of the premier league when it first came to fruition, so we are the only founder club—since Luton Town got back there —that has never been a member of the premier league. So I was heartened to hear what the Secretary of State said today.
We have had the situation with Gateshead this week, which very sadly have not been able to take part in the national league play-offs. If we look at some of the requirements of the EFL—this has been going on for many years—I remember when we had champions of the conference that were told they could not get promoted. Sutton United, which went up not too long ago, had a very sustainable business model, with a 3G pitch, but it was not allowed to go up with that, and I think it spent about £500,000 getting rid of it. It is second from bottom at the moment, and it may go back there. Yet at the same time, we all have teams playing on artificial pitches, and I think there is a bit of a competition issue. Worksop Town has one of these pitches, and it has really helped locally in making the club sustainable. I think where we can actually help here is that we actually talk about that competition issue. We could have better relationships between the Premier League, the EFL and the national league, and that is something to which I think a regulator can really make a good contribution.
This would not be the first time a Government have stepped in. I remember the Taylor report, and what we did with stadiums at the time. There has been a huge improvement in safety, attendances have gone up and people can bring their family without some of the fear that used to be there in the 1980s. As a Notts County fan, I suppose I did have a bit of an interest in the three up, three down from the national league, as we did spend four years there, so I will declare a bit of interest. Likewise, on the fit and proper test, we have also been a victim in the past, where the fit and proper test simply has not been fit and proper itself, and we ended up with owners that have not had the best wishes of the club at heart. Thankfully, we have excellent owners now, and this is the kind of thing we can help them to get right. We do not want mission creep, or to be interfering with VAR or things to do with players, or fiddling with the club. We are not there to be micromanagers, and it would be a terrible shame if that happened.
I am glad the Secretary of State mentioned trying to avoid excessive costs and ensure that we are focused on the mission of the Bill. I think the balance is absolutely right, and I congratulate the Department on its work. Football is not the banking industry. I know there are some things that we could take as lessons, but the Bill is about football. We need to keep it about football and realise the unique position of football in our society. Likewise, we are not Germany. Our leagues are much deeper and we have more of them, and the ownership structures are difficult. It would be wrong to copy another model. On involving fans, I was a member of a supporters trust, and the supporters trust ran Notts County, and Stockport is another great example of a supporters trust. Supporters generally do not have the finances, which can sometimes cause its own problems.
I will finish with one of Ronald Reagan’s most famous quotes when he said that the
“most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”
In this case we do not need to be terrified. These are sensible proposals. I am looking forward to the Bill progressing and to hearing a bit more about it, but from what I can see, this is positive for the game and I congratulate the Minister on that.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I rise to do something I am unaccustomed to do, which is warmly welcome a piece of Government legislation. At the outset I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at and lifelong supporter of Manchester City, the world champions. Not for the first time, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) not just on her excellent speech—I agreed with every word—but because as the Secretary of State said, she laid the foundations for the Bill. We are all grateful to her.
Football brings communities together, but for too long decisions affecting our game have been made without reference to those communities and to the fans, without whom football would be nothing, and without regard to the long-term interests of individual clubs and the wider game. Indeed, some historic clubs have collapsed because of the owners’ reckless actions, and the perverse incentives created by the pyramid’s finances. The longer we have waited for change, the more clubs have been brought to the brink. Football has been in need of reform for some time. Labour has committed to that reform, so we are glad that this much-delayed Bill has the potential to address that. I am pleased it is here. The Bill is mostly well thought through, and the licensing regime and regulated powers are mostly well framed, tightly drawn and positive. I congratulate the Minister on his hard work.
We have heard a lot in recent weeks about unintended threats to the premier league, but not a single one of us in the Chamber wants to threaten the sporting and economic success of the premier league. I love watching premier league football. I watch too much of it. It is the most exciting, high-quality league in the world. It is one of our great exports and cultural strengths. Nothing in the Bill will jeopardise that success. We have heard a fair amount of scaremongering in recent weeks about the Bill’s unintended consequences, but without any evidence.
Frankly, I more concerned about the unintended consequences of the Premier League’s financial success, and consequent financial dominance. Clubs are spending unsustainably to get into and stay in the premier league. As we have heard, EFL clubs lost £471 million collectively during the 2022-23 season. EFL clubs are gambling everything to get into the premier league, failing, and facing financial crisis as a result. All that puts the sustainability of our teams and game into jeopardy. Those are the unintended consequences we should be worrying about, and which the Bill can help to address.
In warmly welcoming the Bill, I wish to make a few comments about areas where it can be improved and strengthened. The regulator’s objectives—rightly, I think—are to protect the financial soundness of clubs, to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football, and to safeguard the heritage of English football—excellent. There was a reference in the White Paper specifically to protecting and promoting the financial resilience of the pyramid. It might be that the phrase “financial resilience of English football” is enough, but perhaps the Minister will explain why that reference, which was in the White Paper, did not make it into the Bill.
On the proposed financial redistribution powers, it is obviously important that the regulator has backstop powers to intervene in financial distribution between leagues where necessary. It is right that the regulator will be able to step in in circumstances where the Premier League and the EFL cannot agree a deal. For that to happen, one of those parties has to initiate the process, and the regulator makes the decision based on the proposals put forward by each party. That seems a reasonable enough system, but I agree that there is a question about whether the regulator should also have the power to put forward its own proposals, if they are deemed to be beneficial to the football pyramid as a whole.
I do not understand why parachute payments are specifically excluded from the scope of the regulator, as appears to be the case in the Bill. We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about the money that the Premier League gives to the rest of the EFL. According to the FSA, between 2019 and 2022 the Premier League shared £887 million in what is termed “core funding”, but £663 million of that went to relegated clubs via parachute payments. As I understand it, 92% of the TV income went to 25 clubs—those in the premier league and those in receipt of parachute payments. The other 67 clubs get just 8%. It is obvious that parachute payments are a significant distorting element of the system. If we are to have a dispute resolution mechanism between the two bodies, it is difficult to see how that will work effectively when such a large chunk of the money for redistribution is excluded from scope.
Finally, on redistribution, I would be pleased to see more opportunity for the regulator to step in to determine further redistribution to grassroots football, community spending, women’s football, youth development, player pensions and those sorts of things. That is not to be done without careful consideration, but as a backstop provision for potential problems in the future.
I am running out of time, but I will mention football fan engagement and decision-making powers. It is good to see the setting of a strong minimum standard for fan engagement as part of the thresholds for clubs getting a licence. The original fan-led review went further with the requirement for a golden share. I am not suggesting that we must have that, but I urge the Minister to look again at those areas of the Bill to ensure meaningful fan consent. Whether we are talking about regulated colours of home shirts or the ground, clubs should demonstrate that the fans have a significant say.
Finally, there are some elements missing from the regulator’s remit that were recommended by the fan-led review. It is a missed opportunity that the Government have not taken on board the recommendation for a transfer levy to help redistribute resources. It is also disappointing that the requirement for club equality, diversity and inclusion action plans has not been progressed. The Government will say that that should be part of the annual licensing process, but I would welcome ministerial assurance on that, probably specified during the Bill’s passage. I would have liked to see some reference to environmental sustainability. We all need to play our part for the future of the planet. I also wonder whether the Bill would benefit from further clarification on what support is available if a club looks to be at risk of being unable to meet the conditions of a permanent licence.
I have run out of time. I look forward to the Bill’s passage, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments made today. This is an opportunity to put our football pyramid on a sustainable footing for years to come; I look forward to supporting it this evening.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is great to be able to contribute to this debate, because although they say the Black Country was built on coal and metal, we were also built on football. I straddle the two clubs at the heart of the Black Country derby—namely, West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers.
This is a pertinent Bill and a pertinent debate for my communities in the Black Country. We went through absolute hell with the financially precarious situation surrounding West Bromwich Albion. At one point, the club was having to borrow £20 million just to keep the lights on. An independent regulator stepping in to ensure ultimately that fans of football clubs—cherished parts of the community—can keep that club and that entity there, can enable that sustainability and can put these people, who are often behind the scenes, under the cosh and under scrutiny is absolutely the right way forward.
I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for his work on the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who has been an absolute champion in this space. She should be so proud of what she has achieved; the Bill is a real testament to her work.
We have covered a plethora of issues in the debate, not least the football pyramid. What I perceive at times is the inequity of the system we have got. I deal a lot with fantastic grassroots football clubs, which many Members have talked about. Sometimes the narrative and discourse about the need for regulation involves a top-down approach, and of course we must highlight the important work that our premier league clubs do, but let us not forget that the pipeline to many of those clubs is first and foremost through grassroots football, which a lot of the players we talk about—those stars and talents—come through. My fantastic local football clubs, such as Tipton Town football club in my constituency, constantly share their frustration that they are ignored, left out or put under ridiculous burdens that they often have to meet without resources.
Everyone has touched on the replay issue. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is a complete kick in the teeth, particularly for clubs that are further down the pyramid and rely on the revenue from getting people through the gate. Again, it just seems that the FA is only listening in its echo chamber, quite frankly.
Dr Luke Evans
The Government have a tricky line to tread in ensuring that football is independent and adheres to UEFA and FIFA rules on Government interference. On FA cup replays, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a role for a reconsideration mechanism, so that Government can bounce the decision back to the regulator and ask, “Have you potentially got this wrong, and will you think again?”
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend is almost asking for a replay of the replay—that is sort of where the question is. I get the point that he is trying to make about balance and the fine-line argument on Government interference. The point has been made quite strongly, as we have all seen—the FA’s own survey found that 70% of fans wanted to retain replays—and with that level of public pressure, there is a role for the Government in facilitating the pressure on the FA. I think that that is the point that he is hammering down on, although obviously the FA must ultimately be independent.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I represent Gillingham, which has an amazing football club: the Gills. The club was in administration in 1995 and was bought for £1 by the then chairman, Paul Scally. Now it is doing exceptionally well and going up the league, but it is a small club and it relies on FA cup replays. If we are really passionate about supporting smaller clubs in the community, and about ensuring that the FA does the right thing by supporting them, we need the Government to work with the FA to ensure that we get this right.
Shaun Bailey
Just like my hon. Friend’s club, Tipton Town in my constituency got through on FA cup replays and benefited from that opportunity. The fact that so many Members have voiced that concern, as he has done so eloquently, highlights the strength of feeling about it.
Let me move away from that issue to look at the Bill operationally. I welcome the licensing regime; the provisional and permanent licences are a pragmatic way to do things. I will be interested in seeing, in Committee and in the secondary legislation that follows the Bill, the detail of the regime. I appreciate that there is quite often flexibility and gaps in primary legislation to allow for a more pragmatic approach, but it is important to ensure that we build structures for fan consent and support so that clubs are doing things properly, particularly when it comes to moving stadiums and grounds. That will be a really important thing for us to work on to ensure that when the legislation is implemented, it is done in such a way that people cannot circumvent and dodge its intentions, as so often happens with such legislation.
In supporting the Bill, I want to touch on the important community impact that many Members have highlighted. At the core of this Second Reading debate are the principles behind the Bill and the importance of what it seeks to achieve. My nearest club, West Bromwich Albion, does fantastic community work through the Albion Foundation. It was a pleasure to meet its representatives only a few weeks ago, and to see that the legend that is Blind Dave Heeley received an award at the EFL Awards. Dave has raised £3 million on his own for the Albion Foundation to support vulnerable people in our communities to get into sport. I am proud to support the Albion Foundation’s six town strategy in Sandwell to reach out to communities that often are disconnected and ensure that they benefit from the positives of football. Without that important financial stability, which the Bill tries to ensure through its regulatory structures and regimes, organisations like the Albion Foundation would not be able to do their work.
I want to touch on the issues of West Bromwich Albion. To be quite frank, the previous owner used the club as a piggybank, borrowing money from the club to take it elsewhere. That is not on. It is an example of someone who does not love their football club and has no understanding of the emotional attachment that a community such as mine has to it. The Bill’s transparency provisions try to stop that. We must also ensure that the corporate structures surrounding that work too. We cannot have shady or opaque ownership structures, such as what we saw with West Bromwich Albion—I am glad to say, no more—which enabled a situation like that to occur. I pay tribute to the fantastic Action for Albion group, which did amazing work to highlight the club’s issues, and fought tooth and nail for the club. Down to its work, we were able to save the club and ensure its future longevity. No politician can take credit for the work of Action for Albion; it was a truly community-led campaign to safeguard our club.
I am conscious of the time I have remaining, and I do not want to be too repetitive. I have a few asks of the Minister, which I am sure he will really appreciate. We talk of the pyramid model, which I like to refer to as aspirational. Can he ensure that, as we build out some of the requirements, clubs further up the pyramid will not have in-built advantages over clubs further down, particularly given some of the disclosure and paperwork requirements? The clubs higher up can afford savvy lawyers who can try to get around those requirements, but the clubs further down cannot necessarily do that, particularly if they are having a meteoric rise up through the league, as some have in recent years. We need to ensure that there is no disparity. I appreciate that financial provisions are in place for that, but we need to ensure that the requirement is not too onerous. I highlight to the Minister the need to ensure that consultation is meaningful—not just for the sake of it—and that the relevant structures are built in.
I support this Bill; it is the right thing. It is what communities like mine in the Black Country—football is at the heart of who they are—have been calling for. It is now imperative that as we build out the Bill, we get it right operationally. I commend the Minister for his work on it.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
The measure is necessary but woefully insufficient. The regulator is vitally necessary but the idea that the danger is over-regulation is wholly misconceived. The danger is that the regulator will not have the power or the ambition to take on board even the excellent proposals brought forward in the fan-led inquiry led by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch).
Many times during the early part of the debate it was said that football was a business, but to paraphrase Bill Shankly, it is much more important than that. I was sat in the House of Commons Celtic supporters’ club—a surprisingly large and august institution in this place—when the club’s then chairman repeatedly referred to us as customers. I pointed out at the end of the meeting, “With all respect, sir, we are not customers. Customers shop around; if they do not like what is on your shelf, they will go across the road and try someone else’s. We are here because our fathers were here, and our sons and now, thank God, our daughters will be here for the very same reasons.”
Speaker after speaker has adumbrated the local cases of their football clubs and the centrality of those clubs to their communities. Recently, Rochdale football club—which, sadly, is now in the national league—ran into real danger of hitting the wall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on the points he is putting forward. The consensus of opinion in this Chamber seems to be that every MP supports their club and their fans and wants to see a difference. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill that will have its Second Reading today will be to the benefit of all the clubs, the fans and their MPs? Does he also agree that Northern Ireland should also have some of the improvements and guidelines that are in the Bill, so that we in Northern Ireland can have the same guidelines and the same way forward?
George Galloway
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, as a supporter of a united Ireland I will not follow him down that path. I look forward to him thriving in an Irish football environment and asking the Taoiseach for the necessary support, rather than Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to make a point about the gall of the Premier League lobbying us yesterday, saying that all these matters should be left to the free market. What kind of free market is it when at least three premiership teams are owned by foreign countries? Some are more thinly veiled than others, but there are three foreign countries in the premier league right now, and what countries! They are not countries that would be allowed to buy The Daily Telegraph, but they are allowed to buy top blue-chip football clubs in England. What is local about that? Why would we allow foreign states to buy pieces of our national treasure that are also of extraordinary importance to local communities?
I was just talking about the funereal atmosphere there was when it looked like Rochdale AFC, having fallen out of the league into the national league, might go out of business altogether. Hopefully, that problem has been at least partially resolved.
Rehman Chishti
I remember many great matches between the wonderful teams of Rochdale and Gillingham in the lower leagues. In 1999, Gillingham were playing Manchester City in the Wembley play-offs for the second division, and now Manchester City are in the premiership. The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely right: the success of football clubs should not be down to the investment of foreign countries. It should be about regulated investment in smaller clubs such as Gillingham and Rochdale, enabling them to go up, rather than relying on the investment of international sovereign wealth funds in our football league. He is absolutely right that the Premier League has a role and responsibility to support smaller clubs.
George Galloway
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a very important point. As Members can imagine, we in the Workers party want to save football for the workers: for the working class who gave it birth and were its mainstay for many, many decades—for a century—before the premiership even existed, and who are now priced out of the game. It now costs £60 to attend a premiership match. For a man and wife going, it costs £120. A woman and her son, with a burger and a cup of Bovril thrown in, are spending £100 to go to a football match—all to fund the fantastic profits that are being made in the premiership.
I declare an interest: I have three sons in youth football, all of whom I think have the capacity to make it. I will be their agent, so that is a future pecuniary interest. My sons are playing not on plastic pitches, which were disparagingly referred to earlier, but on grass that has not been cut all year, with humps and bumps and hills and hollows. By definition, a pyramid has a very, very large bottom, and that bottom is where we need to filter the money—not to agents, not to premiership players on half a million pounds a week. I am not making that number up. Some players get half a million pounds a week for playing—looking at Manchester United at the weekend—not very well or even very energetically at all. Football is in a terrible state.
The Workers party has a policy. I do not have time to discuss it, but I commend it to the House. Our policy on football is this: we believe not in fans having a golden share, though that would be a big step forward, but in fan ownership of football clubs—[Interruption.] I see some scoffing, and to those who scoff I say that German football is fan-owned. The great Bayern Munich, the next champions of Europe—who have won the championship of Europe 10 times, I think—are 51% supporter-owned. Borussia Dortmund, another power in Germany, are 78% fan-owned. Would not that solution end the problem of foreign states or these rum foreigners buying our top clubs? Johnny Foreigner has been mentioned several times. They live outside our borders, cannot be reached by sanctions and walk away from fines. Would not this solve that problem? Of course, we also have our own rum owners from our own land who own football clubs and run them into the ground. If the fans owned the team, would not that be a better solution?
Someone said that Parliament should not be regulating whether there are replays on a Wednesday. Why not? If it is the people’s game and we are the people’s representatives, we are absolutely entitled to have a view on the cheating of lower division supporters of the chance to take a big premiership club to a lucrative replay. We have every right to be outraged by that. If the Football Association is listening to this debate, we should tell it that it will be forced to reinstate replays. If not now, then soon.
My final points concern the two teams with which I am most closely associated: Glasgow Celtic in Scotland and Manchester United in England. Manchester United have foreign owners who have looted the club of billions of pounds. They did not even buy the club. They bought it, then borrowed against the club’s assets to cover the money that they paid to buy it, and they have paid themselves a king’s ransom in dividends. The Glazers must go—that is the feeling of 99.9% of Manchester United supporters—but how can we make them go? Well, we got rid of Celtic’s board. I was one of the proud members of the Sack the Board campaign and my good friend Brian Dempsey led it. We sacked the board by popular pressure, and popular pressure will have to be maintained on the robber barons from New York, the Glazers, before they destroy Manchester United altogether.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a huge privilege to speak on the long-awaited Football Governance Bill. Not only is this a matter of great importance to sports fans across the UK and beyond; it is also a personal passion and I commend everybody that has been involved in getting the Bill this far. Locally in Berkshire we have a proud football pedigree. Reading FC is the only league club in Berkshire. It has a proud history and has done brilliantly this season to survive in league one against all the odds. In my constituency, Bracknell Town and Sandhurst Town have also enjoyed strong seasons, and across the border in Hampshire, Aldershot Town are back on the map after their most exciting season for years. Well done to Tommy Widdrington and his players. I was at the Dagenham game on Saturday, which was brilliant. It was a pity that Dagenham did not quite make the national league play-offs, but next season will be even better.
As the father of two young sons who play to a decent level, I know that better regulation of the game is essential to their future, and to the future of all our clubs. This is the beautiful game, and it does need better regulation to ensure that football always comes home. We know what the Bill does: it seeks to establish an independent football regulator, and includes provisions that seek
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”
for the benefit of fans and local communities. That is very important, but I say to the Minister that regulation must be light-touch. Given the pre-eminence of football in the UK, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater by inadvertently making the Premier League, the English Football League or the national league less attractive to owners, potential investors, the media or the fans. As we know, the Premier League is also the world's leading football brand, and is worth billions to the UK. If it ain’t broke, please don’t fix it.
Regulation, then, must be just enough. It must be balanced to protect clubs and fans from rogue owners, but without jeopardising the game. Recent history is littered with examples where it has gone badly wrong: Southend United, Wigan, Portsmouth, Bury, Colchester, Sheffield Wednesday, Hull, Derby and several others, but most recently and perhaps most spectacularly of all, Reading. For a fan such as me, the last few years have been galling. We have seen freefall from the premier league, 18 points of deductions, huge fines, players not being paid, bills not being settled and fans in despair, and I feel their pain. Let me put this on the record: I personally commend every single Reading fan. They have been magnificent, and they have supported the club through thick and thin. I should also mention the brilliant Sell Before We Dai group, which has been so instrumental in this regard.
Does lobbying work? Absolutely yes, and I give credit to Members as well—my right hon. Friends the Members for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and for Ashford (Damian Green), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and, in particular, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), with whom I have worked very closely in connection with Reading football club. Members have leant in, in respect of Reading and many other clubs. Pressure has been brought to bear on owners, and a cross-party approach really does work: politics is always at its best when MPs work together. As for the question of a pilot for the new regulator, I cannot think of a better example than Reading. The new regulator must cut his or her teeth on that particular club—and the Bill itself must have teeth, because a regulator without powers is of no use whatsoever. Let me say to the Minister that I look forward to seeing the terms of reference for the initial incumbent.
The aim of the Bill is to put fans back at the heart of the game. It is about running clubs and putting them back on their feet, and about heritage and future direction. As we have heard, it is also about sustainability, and about ensuring that we lay the foundations for clubs as we go forward in English football. It must apply across the whole pyramid, and not just to the top five leagues. It is right that new owners and directors will face stronger tests to stop clubs falling into the wrong hands, and will face the possibility of being removed and struck off from owning football clubs if they are found to be unsuitable—and much more; but the devil will be in the detail.
As for Reading football club, I have learnt several lessons this year. First, fans do matter and fan power does work. Fans have a voice, and they have used their voice this year and before in relation to Reading FC. Secondly, Reading Borough Council’s decision to list the Select Car Leasing stadium as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011 was a masterstroke. Dai Yongge is unable to sell the stadium, and rightly so. Lastly, I give full credit to Wokingham Borough Council for a little deed for the Bearwood Park training centre. If a club cannot legally sell its assets to another club, that club lives on. Once again, these measures have effectively stopped further asset stripping by Dai Yongge, and will lead to the successful future of Reading FC. Reading is now moving in the right direction. Bills are being paid for March, April and May; new owners are believed to be interested in the club, and we could yet survive. I thank everyone at Reading FC, and all the fans, for making this happen.
So what is not in the Bill? First, punitive action for owners who fail the test. I say to the Minister that they need not just to be banned from football but to be banned, full stop. They need to be banned from being directors, or banned by HMRC. The Bill does not address welfare provision for players. What are clubs doing to soften the blow for players who get rejected or suffer mental health issues? The Bill affects the top five leagues only; it needs to affect national leagues south, north and below because they are all worthy. The women’s game has been mentioned, but I feel strongly that the Bill needs to go further on the women’s game in due course.
Lastly, the FA cup decision on replays being stopped from round one is outrageous. It is nothing less than cultural vandalism of the world’s greatest cup competition. If the larger clubs have to play replays with the huge resources they have got, so what? I have no sympathy whatsoever. Having watched so many FA cup exploits over the years, not least at Sutton United and Woking, I do not buy the FA’s logic. These cup ties are the stuff of legends. Magic does exist in sports. Admittedly, no Government can regulate this, but if FA officials are watching, I urge them to rethink that appalling decision.
Dame Tracey Crouch
There is a larger point about FA cup replays. Those lucrative replays are once in a lifetime opportunities, but the fact that there are clubs that are relying on those lucrative replays demonstrates why we have a problem with finances in the football pyramid. Although my hon. Friend says that the Government cannot regulate on the matter, the Bill gives the Secretary of State some amazing powers to bring the FA cup into conversations. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is not something that I particularly favour, it is something that can be done?
James Sunderland
I agree wholeheartedly. Anything that we can do in terms of the regulation is worth pursuing. I was at the Aldershot-West Brom game earlier this year, which was an incredible day out. That could have been a third round replay. The money raised from such occasions is extraordinary. While clubs cannot depend upon that lifeline, it is a fantastic bonus when it happens. Certainly, it helped Aldershot massively with its finances this year.
To conclude, I strongly support the Bill. I commend the DCMS, the Minister, the authors of the Bill and my fantastic hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch). The Bill is long overdue, but it is here now. I am also reassured that the Conservative Government have done this. It will make a huge difference to all clubs and fans—let’s bring it on.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Like many across this Chamber, I thank those from across the political sphere, those within the footballing community and those who led the fan-based review because their work is finally coming to fruition with the Second Reading debate of the Bill. The referee, in the shape of the independent football regulator, will finally be on the pitch. We are beginning that journey. It is particularly fitting that this takes place on St George’s Day, as the English nation gave the world the beautiful game. That nation now needs to put its house in order, for the many and not the few, to ensure that the pyramid effectively works for leagues across the beautiful English game.
As has been echoed across the Chamber, by Members of all political persuasions, we are only in this space because the premier league and those who govern our beautiful game have not got their house in order. That hands-off the pitch and that laissez-faire approach certainly has not worked for our fans, our clubs and, importantly, our communities. That has been mentioned in reference to Bury FC, one of our oldest football clubs in the country, certainly in the north-west of England where I represent. They were expelled from the football league amid rising debts and financial problems. There have been other notable and documented examples at clubs like Bolton Wanderers, Derby County and, recently, Reading football club.
These, and other clubs—we reckoned there were around 60 such clubs—had a number of common factors: unfit owners, greed, asset selling, poor governance and long-standing alienation of the fan base. There was total disregard for history, identity, emotions and communities. This laissez-faire, anything goes approach—the wild west of football—must be brought to a full stop. To drive that, the new, independent football regulator must have teeth, with strong rules to ensure that our great footballing clubs have fit and proper owners. I would certainly like to see more clubs owned and controlled by their fanbase. We have great examples of that in my constituency, including Northwich and Runcorn Linnets, who only this weekend I saw beat our rivals Widnes.
We want to see sustainable financial plans, with fans at the heart and soul of those clubs to protect assets such as stadiums and historical identities. People have referenced that—it is certainly in the Bill—in regard to kits and badges; those things are vital.
I am a long-standing Manchester United fan, so I am familiar with problems of ownership. The Glazers, who have already been referenced, bought the club on the never-never. They were one of the richest football clubs in the world; they are now one of the most indebted, and that really has affected our performance on the pitch, which has been pretty woeful this year, including in the FA cup semi-final. I pay credit to Coventry, who played incredibly well, while we played incredibly badly. But the problems on the pitch come down to some problems with the ownership.
I gave up my Manchester United season ticket long ago—it was a difficult decision to make—because of the Glazers. I echo the clarion call—I did so at the time with my protest scarf and all the rest of it—that the Glazers really must go. Perhaps we are on the start of that journey, with some new ownership.
I am a Cheshire and Merseyside MP, and quite a number of my constituents are Everton fans, who have been aggrieved by recent point deductions. Some of those have been on financial issues—the purchasing of a stadium, and certainly players—but fairness is a real bone of contention. Everton have been deducted 10 points —a high number. That has gone to appeal and so forth, yet they look at other clubs across Britain, such as the Manchester Cities and Chelseas of this world—by the way, Manchester City have had 115 breaches—and see that those who have incredibly deep pockets, financed by sovereign wealth funds, seem to get away with it because they can afford the litigation. Of course, Manchester City are not the only ones—I have referenced Chelsea, and there are certainly others.
We have mentioned fit and proper ownership for our clubs. How can it be right that sovereign wealth funds of foreign states with woeful human rights records own Great British—English—football clubs such as Newcastle United? It has been fairly well documented that one such nation state had managed to execute more of its citizens than a striker for Newcastle United had put balls in the back of the net. That is horrendous.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The hon. Member—as he knows, I am from the same part of the world as him—is making some excellent points. He touched on Bury FC in my constituency. I am interested in fairness in football. In the FA cup semi-final at the weekend, we saw Manchester United—the winners as a result of about 1 mm in a video call—get £1 million, while Coventry City got £500,000. For all that we in the Chamber talk about fairness in a general way, does he believe that that is a fair share of the moneys in the circumstances?
Mike Amesbury
Clearly not, and I think that there is space for the regulator to intervene. As has been referenced, the FA cup can be a lifesaver for grassroots clubs. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Gillingham, and I think that Bristol Rovers were also mentioned. Again, the issue is financial sustainability. The regulator should intervene to ensure that the FA makes the right decisions for all our clubs, right across the pyramid.
Like many Members across the Chamber, I think the Bill is great for the football community, and I credit all those who have been involved. It is very important that we have the fans at the heart of this. There are some issues, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, to do with competition and the parachute payments, which are distorting the footballing community, but overall I very much welcome and support this Bill.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who touched on the important issues in this debate. I particularly appreciate the way he very gently touched on the cost of the kit and of the badge, which I think follows on from his campaign to make school uniforms affordable. That is such an important issue.
I also appreciate how the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) captured that sense that football fans are not just customers who can go to one supermarket or another. There is so much more about football. It is not just about a strong fan base, the acquisition of the right players, having good management and other things that we would associate perhaps with a corporation; it is about the family, the next generation, that sense of community and wellbeing, and people going to the stadium, walking together in solidarity to see their club. That is what football is about for so many communities up and down the country.
When Bolton fell into very difficult times recently, and—looking not too far away—when Bury went into administration in 2020, it was a traumatic experience for many football fans, even those watching an opposing team. Bolton came very close to being in that position, but since then we have regained our strength and improved our position. At the moment we are third in league one. We are in the play-offs—and if Peterborough and Derby do the right thing and lose very badly with a huge goal difference, we might be in the automatic play-off position.
James Daly
My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, which not many people will know: Bury and Bolton were in essentially the same financial situation. Both had gone into administration at the same time. The regulator decided to expel Bury from the EFL and keep Bolton in the league. The suspicion was that, with Bolton being a bigger club than Bury, the regulator did not want to get rid of them, but poor little Bury could be used as an example. I think that is an example of why regulation is needed in this sphere.
Chris Green
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. The idea of one club of the status of Bury tumbling out of the English football league was pretty grim, but to have two clubs do so would have been catastrophic for the EFL.
I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to fans and clubs and brought forward this Bill to secure the game’s future in England. The game’s fractured governance model and the inequitable distribution of finances are increasingly putting the future of the sport in England at risk. In the coming debates on the passage of this Bill, Parliament has the opportunity to give the new independent football regulator the right powers to ensure the game’s sustainability for the good of the football pyramid, from the grassroots to the heights of the premiership.
Any attempt to weaken the IFR’s powers or to make it a passive and ineffective entity should be strongly resisted. A particular concern, brought to my attention by Ian Bridge of Bolton Wanderers Supporters Trust, relates to part 6 of the Bill on financial distribution, where questions over parachute payments have not been ruled out, and to whether the Bill in its current form can deliver on its objective of protecting the financial sustainability of English football.
I look forward to supporting this Bill throughout all its stages. I think the debate has been incredibly constructive. The Bill may need a little further refinement, but I welcome the work and efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) and of the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) .
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First of all, we are here today because football has failed to regulate itself over many years. It is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that, in the end, we regulate on the behalf of football fans for now and for the future, and for the communities where our football clubs are based. That is our job. I will just begin by thanking those who have got us to this position: the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), certainly; the Minister for sticking with it and bringing the Bill before the House today; and the EFL, the PFA, the Football Supporters’ Association and Fair Game for their advice. I even had a conversation with the Premier League, but let us say that that conversation did not lead to as much agreement as other conversations I have had with other football organisations.
This is not a Bill to destroy the Premier League, as some have tried to present it, including the Premier League itself. The Premier League has been a massively successful organisation. It has brought unimaginable wealth into football and into this country. The legislation is not here to destroy the Premier League, but to ensure that its great strength, its financial resources, can be used as a basis on which to strengthen the whole of the football pyramid. It is just a pity that the Premier League itself does not see it like that. It does not see its responsibility to the wider football game, but instead so often seems intent on narrowly focusing its attention on supporting the handful of clubs that are within the Premier League.
We just have to look at the other successful brand in English football: the pyramid. There is no other football pyramid like it in the world. The championship has the fifth-highest attendances of any league in Europe. Where else could you go on a Sunday afternoon to a second-tier relegation game and get 7,500 fans not in the home end but in the away end? Sheffield Wednesday did that at Blackburn on Sunday—and won, I hasten to add, giving ourselves hope of salvation. That is the strength there, but the incredible power of the Premier League’s resources is slowly beginning to corrode and erode the basis of the whole football pyramid. That is what we have to stop and what we have to act on.
In very simple figures, 25 clubs—not just the 20 clubs in the premier league, but the other five that are in and out of it on a regular basis—get 92% of the distributed resources within football. The other clubs in the EFL get 8%. That simply is not sustainable, and we have seen that gap grow and grow over the years. It is not just a static problem; it is an increasing problem that undermines the whole of the football pyramid.
Does the Bill, as it stands, deal with that fundamental challenge? The process for a review of football finance is far too bureaucratic. Why not give the regulator the up-front power to come to a decision about the distribution of football’s resources that makes individual clubs sustainable, and competition within and between the leagues sustainable? That is a simple remit. Let them get on with it, rather than going through this process right the way through to a backstop, knowing that the leagues have already had a chance to reach an agreement which they have signally failed to do. The Premier League never made a single offer right through the process from the very beginning.
With the parachute payments excluded from the backstop, the Minister risks destroying his own Bill. If the Bill remains as it stands, we will not achieve a sensible and appropriate redistribution of revenue. I think that has been said right across the House and we simply have to change it. I am happy to table an amendment in Committee. I hope the Minister might think about how the Government might accept such an amendment, because it will be needed to strengthen the Bill.
Is the distribution of resources simply a matter for the EFL and the Premier League, or do the fans, players and grassroots not have a view? Should there not be a wider process, at least a consultation, so that the regulator has the up-front power and also consults those groups in reaching a final conclusion? It is just strange that something that began with a fan-led review does not mention fans in that very important part.
I welcome the general approach of the licensing system. As has been pointed out, we have had too many bad owners and directors in football, and we still have some around.
James Daly
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. There are some very important points regarding redistribution, but there is also a very important point about the competent management of football clubs. The Derby County situation is an example, because the owner had £400 million in cleared funds when the club was bought. What happened to Derby was a result of how badly it was managed after the initial test. That is a real challenge for this Bill.
Mr Betts
My understanding is that it will be a test of the licensing system. It is about ensuring sustainability, and not just when an owner comes along and says they want to buy a club. They need to show that they can actually sustain that ownership going forward. That is the difference between the current rules and the rules that are being proposed, which we can test further in Committee.
Can the regulator really regulate sovereign wealth funds that own clubs? I have asked the Minister about that before, and it is something else that we have to look at, because it is a challenge to the system. I welcome the fact that fans will have a veto over their club changing its colours or name, but there is nothing in the Bill that says that fans have to be consulted about a change of grounds. The regulator has to approve it, but there is no right for fans to be consulted. We need to have a look at that.
I come back to my own club, Sheffield Wednesday—I have mentioned them once, and I will mention them again. They welcome the proposals and the EFL’s approach to the review, and they recognise the need for a change in the distribution of resources. I am not sure that the owner will be that enthusiastic about the change to require him to consult the fans properly. Many owners are like that—they want to go through the motions. Are they really going to engage in a meaningful way? That will be a real challenge for the regulator at a number of clubs. I understand why the form of consultation is not specified, but it will still be a challenge going forward and we need to keep an eye on it.
Finally, I come back to the FA cup. The Minister said it is not our job to get involved in football competitions, but the fan-led review was triggered by some clubs wanting to change the competition they play in by going to the European super league. That involved a handful of rich clubs deciding that they could be better off there. We now have a handful of rich clubs deciding that European games are more important than FA cup replays—that is what is happening.
When Arsenal won the FA cup in 1979, they had five replays, four of which were against Sheffield Wednesday in one round. I remember it all these years later, because it was a great achievement. Three of those replays were at the old Filbert Street ground. We remember those things as football fans, and we should not take them away from the game. I say to the Minister that one of the requirements of the regulator is to ensure that the heritage of English football is safeguarded. Will the regulator have the power to do that under the Bill’s rules, and is the FA cup and its replays not part of the heritage?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has done much work on this issue, and to follow the wonderful speech earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who has done such fantastic work on the important fan-led review. It builds on work done over many years by Members and Committees of this House.
When I was a new MP, I took part in the 2011 football governance review undertaken by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and this issue has been a recurring theme of interest for the House. The reason is that when clubs get into distress, it becomes evident very quickly that the competition’s primary interest is protecting the competition, not individual clubs.
When a club goes into administration, it can be too late to solve the problems. The actions of the league are to protect the integrity of the competition and to complete the season, rather than to save the individual clubs. Because the leagues are effectively governed by the collective views of the chairs of those clubs, they are often not very sympathetic when one of their own gets into trouble, particularly if they think the clubs have got into financial trouble because they have been overspending or, as the leagues would see it, cheating in some way. As we saw with Bolton and Bury—Bury failed financially and were expelled from the league, and Bolton very nearly were—and as we have seen with clubs like Derby, had there been an intervention and had it been made clear that the clubs were already playing and trading in breach of league rules, as they stood, the situation could have been avoided. There could have been an earlier intervention, rather than waiting until the last minute when nothing more could be done.
It is in response to those concerns that the fan-led review was triggered and this Bill has come forward today. We have seen numerous cases of bad ownership. Massimo Cellino acquired Leeds United a few years ago, and the football league did not think he was a fit and proper person, which demonstrates that there was no fit and proper person test. If a person was qualified to be a company director in the UK, they had as much right to be a director of a football club as any other entity, and he defeated the football league in the courts. We desperately needed a test in which somebody could stand up and say, “We are not convinced by this person’s track record. They cannot own the club.”
Coventry City were owned by an investment fund at one point, and nobody knew who the investors were. Leeds United were owned by somebody we did not know, and Sheffield Wednesday were almost bought by somebody who did not exist. It was the wild west, and the Bill seeks to address this by having a regulator that is required to license clubs and has the power to say to a potential owner, as Ofcom does to broadcasters when it is not happy with how they execute their licence, “We are not convinced that you have met the tests, so you can’t be the owner of this club,” or, “You must demonstrate and prove who you are if you are investing in this club. And we must have a robust business plan that demonstrates that you can run the club sustainably, meeting its requirements for this season and future seasons.” That does not require the regulator to invent new rules for football. It simply requires an independent body to enforce the competition rules that already exist. If we had that transparency and that ability to tackle rogue owners, many of the game’s problems would be resolved.
I do not believe that this form of effective regulation will deter people from investing in English football. If anything, it will encourage them. If someone is looking to buy a club in the championship or league one, with the hope of investing in that club and getting it into the premier league, having proper governance and enforcement of the rules will attract better owners into English football, which will be good for everyone.
I seek the Minister’s advice on a few specific points. As I said to the Secretary of State, the Bill’s structure is very interesting. The primary purpose of the regulator is to ensure sustainability, alongside which it has three objectives to consider: soundness, resilience and heritage. In making a determination, the regulator should always act in a way that is sustainable and that supports at least one of the three objectives.
This raises a question where, say, a club does not own its own ground. The ground might be owned by a private third-party entity that is seeking to push up the rent by an extortionate amount that the club cannot afford to pay, so it has to move to a new ground. The fans might be against the move, and the heritage test might say that the club should not move, but the soundness and resilience tests would say that, no, the club should move. The Secretary of State said earlier that the regulator could set aside heritage concerns and make that decision.
The regulator needs to establish some guidelines and principles that it will follow in making such decisions, so that there is proper consideration and so that it does not always defer to the financial case but considers the other points in the round. It is important that the test for directors is subjective and that the regulator can say when it is not satisfied, rather than the test simply being a tick-box exercise in which people may own a club if they can demonstrate that they do not have live convictions for particular offences. The regulator should have a robust power to say no.
The licensing conditions say that a club has to produce a corporate governance report, and the Companies Act 2006 sets out the sort of criteria that a company has to include in its report. And the Bill’s explanatory notes say that a corporate governance report should cover
“the nature, constitution or function of different parts (‘organs’) of the club; the manner in which those parts conduct themselves; the requirements imposed upon them; and the relationship between them.”
That would exclude the players and any relationship, responsibility or obligation that the club has to them. I agree with Ministers that the regulator should not be writing welfare standards and policies for football, but it could act as a guardian in making sure they are being properly enforced. It could use its investigatory powers, if it feels that there are grounds to investigate, to make sure that welfare standards are being properly maintained. This is important because where this idea has failed in football and other sports in the past, it has been because of the power structure within a sporting organisation, whereby the coach and team doctor often have huge influence over the athletes and it is difficult for people to know where they can safely blow the whistle. A backstop guardian, through the regulator, on welfare standards would be totally consistent with the requirement on the clubs to produce a corporate governance statement to the regulator every year. I urge the Minister to consider that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. So as to accommodate everybody, I am going to have to reduce the time limit, after the next speaker, to six minutes. I call Charlotte Nichols.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Although Warrington is known primarily as a rugby league town, we also have many thousands of football fans: those of our nearby premier league clubs, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United; those of our fantastic non-league clubs, Warrington Rylands and Warrington Town; and those involved in our vibrant and diverse grassroots, amateur and Sunday league scenes.
Across the board, there are deep concerns that the beautiful game is becoming ever more distant from the communities it should be rooted in; and that decision making is made in the vested interests of the biggest clubs with the most resources, and is not about fairness and strengthening the sport right through the football pyramid. There are the obvious indicators of that: extortionate prices of season tickets and replica kits; and a lack of rigour in fit and proper persons tests for directors and owners. Even before this weekend’s controversy, I have heard from many constituents: about how the use of VAR is killing the game; that the decision to abolish replays after the first round of the FA cup will mean fewer moments of magic like those we saw at Marine AFC versus Tottenham, will make it less financially viable for smaller clubs to participate, and risks undermining the FA cup’s reputation as the most egalitarian competition in world football; that there is a concerning lack of transparency about points deduction decisions—something that I have received much correspondence on from Everton fans in my constituency, but which has also affected a number of other clubs in recent years; and, of course, about the disaster that is the proposed European super league.
In whose interests are those decisions being made? It is certainly not those of the fans. I therefore welcome the establishment of the independent football regulator, although there are some areas I think it can be strengthened through, which I will address. First, I want to see a regulatory structure that not only acts in the interests of supporters and protects their clubs, but acknowledges and prioritises the role of players and staff at the clubs. When we think about footballers and their working practices, it is easy to think about some of the huge salaries and transfer fees in the premier league, but most players are not on anything like that kind of money and can be in very precarious and short-lived employment. Career-ending injuries that take place on the pitch or illnesses that leave them unable to compete can leave them cut completely adrift, and in many cases without some of the skills and qualifications they need to find alternative employment easily because they invested everything into a footballing future that did not pan out. Just as football is nothing without its fans, it is nothing without its players either.
The Professional Footballers’ Association has pointed out that nowhere in the Bill, as drafted, is there any reference to players, and that that is a significant and serious omission, as they are the primary employees of the industry. There are potential direct impacts on them from decisions taken by the IFR, with no mechanism for consultation with them. There is no mention in the IFR’s regulatory principles of the need for the IFR’s decision making to recognise existing and successful mechanisms that have been developed to encourage co-operation between stakeholders, including the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee—a crucial backstop that has been effective in ensuring that substantive changes to player contracts and conditions cannot be made unilaterally. That is a straightforward thing to fix, and doing so would strengthen the Bill and ensure that there are no unintended consequences of its implementation. The Bill should acknowledge the existence and validity of these non-IFR mechanisms within the new regulatory ecosystem and formalise the responsibility of the IFR to work in a way that recognises them.
Secondly—and vitally—the Bill currently gives the IFR only partial oversight of financial sustainability, with no authority or oversight of profit and sustainability rules. The IFR should therefore have full authority for financial sustainability, including the oversight of profit and financial sustainability rules, in line with the recommendations of the fan-led review. This should include: full authority in applying sanctions; published guidelines on how sanctions will be applied; a guiding principle that sanctions do not unfairly impact fans but instead target club ownership, leadership, and management; and full consideration and involvement of fan representation as part of any sanctions process. Hopefully, this would help to prevent the scenes that we have seen at Everton this season, which have caused real distress to many fans in my constituency and in the wider region, and which have also meant that I have not had a moment’s peace since from my Everton-supporting family members.
As I said in opening my remarks, we are a town that has much to be proud about with our football clubs—something that the brilliant Warrington Football Podcast does so much to highlight with “More Than Just A Rugby Town!” Warrington Town have just secured their highest ever league finish in the club’s history in the national league north, while fans are having to fundraise to make the costly improvements to meet onerous FA ground grading criteria to allow them to continue playing at this level. That does not feel right when we see how much money there is swirling around the game at clubs just a few miles up the road.
The Premier League’s domestic TV deal alone is worth over £6.5 billion, and it is a shame that the recommendation of a transfer levy from the fan-led review has not been taken up. The better redistribution of some of these funds throughout the rest of the football pyramid is crucial for the financial sustainability of the wider game.
Warrington Rylands have made it into the northern premier league play-offs this weekend, after a successful few years, including lifting the FA vase at Wembley, and have just launched their first deaf football team, making the game ever more accessible to more players and fans; and women’s football in Warrington is coming on enormously.
There is plenty to be optimistic about for the future, but we know that we need a regulatory framework for the game that puts more power and resource into the hands of supporters and clubs, sees a fairer distribution of wealth across the game, and increases sustainability, transparency and accountability to get there. I hope that the Government will commit to a constructive cross-party engagement as the Bill makes its way through the House and on to the statute book.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I declare an interest as a Norwich City supporter and a King’s Lynn Town FC fan. As has been mentioned, it is fitting that on St George’s Day we are talking about our national game, which is loved by millions of people in our country. As we have heard, the premier league is also the most watched league in the world, and last year the EFL had the highest attendances for more than 70 years, with over 21 million supporters passing through turnstiles, so football is a great success story. It is in that context that we consider the Bill and the proposals to create a new regulatory structure for the game. As the explanatory notes set out, football was
“previously not regulated by statutory provisions”
and the measures are “unique” and “unprecedented”.
My first point is the one that I made a year ago when the Government published their response: we need to ensure that this is a truly proportionate regime and be mindful of the success of the game. That means having a light-touch regulator, which Ministers have committed themselves to. The Government response set out that the regulator would operate an advocacy-first approach to regulation, meaning that it would use constructive engagement rather than formal intervention wherever possible. However, that could be better reflected on the face of the Bill in the objectives and duties of the new regulator, otherwise the risk of mission creep is more likely to materialise. We have heard a number of contributions already this afternoon in which the regulator is being actively encouraged to expand its scope even before it has been set up.
I support the objectives of financial soundness and resilience, as well as safeguarding the heritage of football—the ground, the crest, the shirt colours and the name of a club are all part of its DNA. Incidentally, Norwich City can boast the oldest song in world football: “On the Ball, City.” I will not sing it. Football is competitive—it is about promotion, play-offs and passion—so the regulator must also understand the essence of the game and not reduce it to a dry, technical analysis of profits and losses, and impose a banking-style straitjacket on clubs.
As a member of the Regulatory Reform Group—I see the chairman, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), entering the Chamber as I speak— I welcome the principles set out in clause 8. However, they can certainly be strengthened to deliver that light-touch regime that is so important. The scale of the task that we will be asking the regulator to undertake will be considerable. It will have to review detailed business plans of 116 clubs and reach agreement on them.
In addition to the mandatory licence conditions, the regulator can impose discretionary requirements on any or all of those clubs. Such requirements would have to be bespoke, and they would then have to be monitored. Clearly, that comes at a cost, which has not really been discussed in the debate so far. The impact assessment estimates that the new regime could cost £132 million over 10 years. Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty, because we do not know precisely what conditions the regulator will put in place. That is money spent by clubs on football that in future will be spent on the costs of regulation. The national league is not the only one that has warned about the risk of the burden on smaller clubs. On licensing, the regulator must avoid duplicating existing requirements and ensure that it adopts a proportionate approach to the levy.
Clearly, a key driver of the legislation is money and how revenues are distributed through the pyramid that is so essential to the health of the game. This has been agreed on a voluntary basis to date, and it would be better if football came forward with its own solution. However, if that does not happen, there is part 6 of the Bill, which sets out the backstop mechanism. Either the Premier League or the EFL can trigger it, and if mediation does not work, a committee of experts drawn from the regulator’s panel will consider final proposals from both.
I have to confess to finding the decision process curious at that point, as rather than looking at each proposal and then adjudicating and determining what is the best overall approach, which could be between the two proposals put forward, the regulator can only opt for one of them. In any negotiation, if both sides feel a bit disappointed with the deal reached, it is likely to be fair. In this scenario, however, only one side will win, so I ask the Minister: why create an expert panel and a regulator if they are not able to apply their own judgment? Given the importance of that provision, I hope the Minister will outline the Government’s thinking. What consideration has been given to how that could be gamed, and will he look again at those provisions as the Bill goes forward?
On revenues, I will briefly focus on parachute payments, which are important elements in enabling clubs promoted to invest and, yes, to take calculated risks so that they can compete. If parachute payments were removed, clubs like Norwich City that are run sustainably and can get promoted—I am optimistic for the play-offs this year—would not have the confidence to invest, knowing that if they go down this path and get relegated, there would be no smoothing of their income. I therefore support the approach in clause 55.
Finally, I return to where we began, with the fan-led review. During covid, clubs were not able to let fans in, and King’s Lynn Town and others had to take sports survival loans—£13 million of them were issued—and their repayment threatens the viability of some clubs. As we look at financial resilience, I encourage the Minister to consider allowing clubs to convert, say, up to 49% of the loans they have taken out and give them to supporters’ trusts as shares. That would create a legacy of community ownership, which would be very worthwhile and would reduce the burden on clubs.
To conclude, football is an important part of our national character, and as the Bill proceeds it is essential that the regulator works with the game, the clubs and the league to ensure that football continues to flourish.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I start by placing on record my congratulations on the success of my local club, Stockport County football club, in its elevation to league one. On top of that, it has topped the table in league two. I use this opportunity—shamelessly, one might argue—to encourage Members on both sides of the House to sign my early-day motion celebrating the success of Stockport County football club in recent months? This is the first EFL title that Stockport County has won since 1967, and it is an important occasion for me as the MP who represents the club in the House of Commons.
Before I go into the main points of my speech, I join other Members on both sides in thanking the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for the work she has done, as well as the members of the Select Committee and the Minister, who has returned to his place. I have done some work with him on grassroots cricket, and I know he takes time to engage with Opposition MPs and MPs from his own party. He has a long-standing record of working hard on this issue, so I wanted to place those words on the record.
Premier league teams need to pay a fair share of the revenue to ensure that all fans can continue to enjoy the sport of football. Clubs like Stockport County football club in my constituency make a valuable contribution to the lives of supporters and countless others in the local community. However, as many have highlighted, the game’s fractured governance model and the inequitable distribution of finances are increasingly putting that risk.
Stockport County football club, and many other clubs, are an important part of England and Britain’s sporting culture, and we must do a lot more to ensure that the model is sustainable. Currently, English football is nowhere near meeting its objective, with EFL clubs losing £471 million during the 2022-23 season. With the shortfall having to be met by club owners, those are serious numbers. Football has failed to take the collective action needed to protect clubs due to the number of vested interests in its governance model. That has been echoed by representatives across the House. The English Football League wants local clubs to prosper as beacons of community pride in towns and cities throughout the country. I know that many fans of all football teams, and other sporting teams, take a lot of pride in and cherish the history and culture of their local team. I am glad that the English Football League welcomes the Bill and this parliamentary scrutiny and discussion. This is a good opportunity to reform the football pyramid—a lot of MPs have made points about that, so I will not repeat them.
Labour has long supported football reform. Our last three manifestos committed to reviewing football governance, giving fans a greater say in the way their clubs are run, and calling for the Premier League to redistribute more of its television rights revenue to the wider game. Labour also supports the implementation of an independent regulator, and we urgently need to bring in new laws to prevent further clubs from going bust or being used as playthings for the wealthy. Sadly, since 1992 more than 60 clubs have gone into administration. Although the Bill is welcome, it is likely to be too little too late for several clubs that had to witness their structures collapse, with fans left disappointed and angry. The fan-led review was published in 2021. Why has it taken the Government so long finally to act? Labour welcomes the Bill, but several issues need to be addressed and I am critical of the time it has taken the Government to come forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I make no criticism of the fact that Members are using the time made available to them, but we will have to reduce the time limit again I am afraid. After the next speaker it will go down to five minutes.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
May I add to the many thanks already offered to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for the considerable work that has gone into this issue? Many others have rightly been mentioned, but time does not allow me to say anything more.
I stand in support of the Bill despite, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, having come to it with a degree of reluctance. I say that because I stand for the love of the game. This has been a fascinating debate, but in one sense it has been characterised by the many different perspectives that people have offered and, with the greatest respect, they have all been partial perspectives. No one person has held a complete and perfect view of football in this country, or the impact of this regulation, and that is vital. Those listening who may be questioning our right as MPs to be talking about the game they love should be reassured that we are just like them—this is a game that we love too.
I am a terrible fan and make no claim to stand here as a fan. I have never held a season ticket in my life, but I do stand here as a player, from my early days at Bangor Juniors—many of my school friends will remember me playing then—through to playing in the Suffolk League in Sporting 87 football club. I joined it when there were about 14 of us fellas from across East Anglia kicking a ball around, and left it when there were more than 600 members, many of them youth players, and we had won a couple of Suffolk fair play awards. I now play—my colleagues might say that is a loose description of the word—on a Friday afternoon for the Dyffryn Conwy Amateurs in Llanrwst. That is a different kind of club. It started for people just to have fun kicking a ball around, to work through some of the things that we pick up during the week, such as issues of mental wellbeing, and for building friendships in the community. I have been very appreciative of that support, in particular the work of Ian in setting up the club.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that I chair the all-party football club group, and I know that hon. Members are sitting here wondering how we got on today against the Lobby. Well, suffice it to say that at half time it was 3-1. It was a closely fought game, played well, but I think I ran out of fingers towards the end. Congratulations to the Lobby on that one; we will be back again next time to even the score.
The aims of this Bill are worthy, and putting the fans’ voice at the heart of football is vital. I grew up in Bangor. In 2019, I saw the club fall from the heady heights of 1985-86, when it played in the cup winners’ cup against Atletico Madrid, to seeing its Farrar Road ground turned into an Asda supermarket through mismanagement and many other episodes. Bangor City Supporters Association formed a breakaway club in 2019. What it stated at the time captures the essence of the Bill. It said:
“We want fans to reconnect with each other and restore the pride and feeling of being a supporter of our historic club. The new club is a creative and positive solution for an ever-changing and precarious situation. We are not disowning Bangor City FC or its history, the club is OURS, it belongs to the fans and local community. ‘Owners’ will come and go but the people remain. Keep the faith.”
There is much in there and much more history than I know—I have been away from the area for many years, so I am not familiar with all the steps in that journey—but it speaks to the concern that people have felt and that constituents have written to me about. I stress that those are constituents of the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), but that is my home, and they have written and spoken of those concerns.
Importantly, this Bill recognises that community ties, sustainability and ethical governance are right at the heart of things and are essential. I would argue that those things resonate with the very Conservative values of heritage, community and sustainability.
Having described a rather unfortunate episode in the history of Bangor City, I can contrast that with the lessons I have learned from watching Llandudno football club, the Seasiders, where the work of Doz and her family over the years has made sure that the club is viable. Rod, Dave Guinn and others on the board at present are seeking to take the club forward.
This Bill makes the point again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, that structure is important. We have to put in place these structures so that the money can flow. I argue that the Bill sends a signal that the era of opaque and unchecked ownership is over. Football is no longer just a plaything for those who see it only as an investment class. It is important that the backstop is in place. It is essential that the potential to fine clubs is retained, so that the regulator has some teeth. I question the scalability and applicability that are mentioned in the Bill.
I felt a chill when I heard some speak with an ambition to interfere with matters of football and apply preferred political agendas or even create a game in which everyone wins a prize. That is not the sport I know or love. I urge the Minister to give time at later stages to clarify some of the points being made and to make sure that while the Bill will deal with bad actors and bad management, it will not remove elements of bad luck.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Bill. As others have encapsulated, our football clubs in this country are unique. They are institutions at the heart of their communities with long, long histories that far outlast whoever might be the chairman, the manager or the players in any period of time. That is why this regulator is overdue, and I very much welcome the work done to get us to this stage.
The regulator has an unenviable job. The number of things that people want to see addressed in football is huge. I am sure there will be all kinds of calls for the regulator to take action on things that fall outside its remit. The Secretary of State was at pains to clarify the regulator’s limited role around football. It is not about a new organisation running football; it is about ensuring that football is sustainable in the future. As my colleagues have said, this legislation has been introduced because football has been unable to break the logjam itself. It will be important for some of the remaining uncertainties in the Bill to be worked out in Committee.
Football is a business—generally a privately owned one—but it is also an institution. As we have heard from many speakers, one of the main reasons for that is that the fans remain. However, it is also a different kind of institution because of the rewards available to those who are successful and the appalling failure that happens when gambles go wrong. Many of us remember the Aston Villa versus Derby County play-off final. It was widely believed that whoever lost that game would end up going bust. Derby County, as we know, went into administration and is now in league one, while Aston Villa is fourth in the premier league with untold riches. For the sake of 90 minutes, those were the differences on the line that day. We cannot have a situation where one person’s gamble leads to that kind of success and another person’s gamble leads to the club almost ceasing to exist. We need the regulator to balance an individual businessperson having a go and the endangering of the cultural institution that is a football club, so that it is does not mean disaster if those having a go fail.
The success of the Premier League has been spoken about many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) was right to say that the championship is the fifth biggest division in Europe. In addition, league one is the tenth most-watched league anywhere in Europe. Right down the pyramid, this country has a thing of unique strength. My club, Chesterfield, which is in the fifth tier, attracted 10,000 fans on Saturday. Its history is informative. Darren Brown almost bankrupted the club and ended up in jail because of the way he conducted himself as the head of Chesterfield. The fans had to step forward and save the club back in 2001. Then, we had Dave Allen as chairman. He got the new ground built and got the club to the edge of league one, but found that, with every further league the club went into, the losses grew.
It is a unique business in that losses grow as the club moves from league two to league one, and from league one to the championship, so there is a perverse incentive. Until the club reaches the promised land of the premier league, the losses grow all the time. Look at some of the losses that championship clubs are experiencing—it is just appalling. Dave Allen lost interest and the club was on the verge of bankruptcy again. The Chesterfield FC Community Trust stepped forward, and the passion, commitment and professionalism that the trust board members have introduced got Chesterfield back into the football league, now with the help of the Kirk brothers—local fans who have their heart in the club. The club is looking much brighter.
The truth is that almost all our premier league clubs are owned not by people with that kind of history and passion for the club, but by foreign-owned institutions and foreign Governments who do not have the same understanding of and commitment to what football is about. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill, which enjoys cross-party support. Now, we need to ensure that it works.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for her tremendous work in this area.
Football is a vital part of our communities, bringing people together in support of their much-loved clubs. Since 1883, Darlington has been home to Darlington football club, known as the Quakers or simply Darlo. It is the team that Arthur Wharton, the world’s first black professional footballer, played for. I declare my interest as an individual shareholder of that fan-owned club.
As a fan-owned club, Darlington’s profits are reinvested back into the club. Following the financial collapse of the club some years ago, it is building back and has ambitious plans to secure its own ground to further sustain its financial future—an ambition that I am proud to support. A club with close links to the community has the potential to develop deeper, longer-term partnerships.
Community-owned clubs offer greater protection and transparency within their constitutions, which appeals to partners, funders, and sponsors. Giving people the chance to have a stake in their club can increase their connection with it. People can share the responsibility of sustaining their club, unlocking more volunteers and participation. If supporters know that the money they spend will be reinvested in the club, they are more likely to spend and donate more.
I welcome that, in the face of the gaps getting bigger, the Bill seeks to overhaul the football finance system to protect and promote the sustainability of English football for fans and communities like those in Darlington. I want to put on the record my thanks to David Johnston at Darlington football club for his engagement on the Bill in recent weeks. The Bill puts fans back at the heart of the game. With no fans, there is no game. Sadly, Darlington football club has suffered in the past, and its future has hung in the balance, causing uncertainty for the club and the community at large. That is why I applaud the stronger tests in the Bill for prospective owners.
Findings from the report by Fair Game show the disparity in the distribution of TV income. For every £1,000 in the broadcast deal, a premier league club gets £882.42, whereas Darlington FC, as a national league north club, gets merely 15p. That is simply not right, and focuses on protecting the bigger, wealthier clubs as opposed to the smaller ones that are so integral to their communities. I must recognise the wonderful work of the Darlington FC Foundation, which does so much good in my constituency.
I take this opportunity to thank the Government for their support of sports more generally in the community. Darlington has received over £900,000 for a new pitch, running track and changing pavilion at Eastbourne sports complex. Firthmoor community centre received over £90,000 for its multi-use games area, and there has been much needed investment in football across Darlington. All that helps inspire people and ensure that children can stay fit and healthy. Yet again, it is an example of the Government investing in football in our communities for people of all ages and abilities.
Finally, the Bill recognises that major changes must occur to keep our grassroots sports alive. I welcome the Bill, which is much needed for our fantastic football clubs to ensure that fans are put first and our clubs can not only survive but thrive.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
For those who have opposed the Bill, particularly the Premier League, it is worth pointing out a few facts that the English Football League has provided. In the four years that the deal between the Premier League and the Football League was negotiated, wages in the premier league have gone up by £800 million—from £3.2 billion to £4 billion. In 2022-23, premier league clubs spent £2.8 billion on player transfers, and in 2024 the premier league spent £410 million on agents’ fees. Anyone who says that the Bill will damage the viability of the premier league needs to look at those figures.
We must remind ourselves of why we are here. As everyone has, I rightly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), but the arguments from the fans go back many years. I know that because I wrote Labour’s manifesto on football back in 2015, and we spoke powerfully about the need for fans to have a say. Fans are of the communities where the clubs are situated; they have sustained those clubs through generations, and they are an early warning system when there are problems in those clubs. One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it does not say enough about consulting and empowering fans. It could go further in those areas,
The legislation on the regulator is defective in two ways. It does not give the regulator step-in rights to settle a deal between the various organisations in the football pyramid. More importantly, the regulator is not empowered to deal with the issue of parachute payments. We are told that that issue is going to be dealt with through the licensing system; I would like to know how that is going to work, because that is about individual clubs. The impact of clubs having parachute payments is that other clubs are enticed to try to compete with them financially. Are we going to say to clubs that are receiving parachute payments under the licensing scheme, “You can’t spend that money”? That just does not make sense, so how will we be able to deal with this inequality of arms for clubs with parachute payments under the licensing system?
We are also told that through the licensing system, clubs that are overspending and perhaps overstretching themselves will be dealt with by the regulator. That seems to put the disparity in wealth and resources into legislation—actually to legislate to keep those clubs in abeyance, way behind the clubs that receive parachute payments. We know that parachute payments are the driving force behind many of the problems that exist in the financial arrangements of many clubs in the football league. That has led to difficulties, so how can we possibly have a regulator to deal with the issue of football finance that does not have the right to step in and deal with parachute payments? That has to change—it cannot be accepted.
On the issue of assets, Charlton Athletic do not own their ground, and they do not own their training ground. The training ground is in my constituency—it is metropolitan open land. The former owner has kept the rights to, and ownership of, the stadium and the training ground. I can only assume that he has done so out of spite, or perhaps he thinks there is going to be a payday down the road where he can develop those assets. As I say, the training ground in my constituency is metropolitan open land; he will develop that over my dead body. Perhaps he is going to arrange that—I do not know—but the stadium will not be given planning permission for development by the local authority in any case, so I think the former owner needs to think again. He should deal with Charlton even-handedly and hand over the rights to that ground.
Lastly, as other Members have said, there is the issue of sovereign wealth funds owning football clubs. The regulator must be given powers to get to grips with that, because the current situation is unacceptable. I support the Bill, and I hope I will get on the Bill Committee.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
This is a unique regulatory Bill, in that it regulates the preservation of football clubs—in my view, it is regulation to save something, rather than regulation regarding competition. It is illogical to suggest that anything could level the competition between Bury football club and Manchester City, in terms of their assets or in terms of anything else.
When Bury FC were rejected from the EFL, at the heart of the matter were the serious concerns that Jonathan Taylor KC raised in his review: the owner and director roles that were being enforced by the football league, especially in relation to leagues one and two. In that report, he said that
“There is no doubt that the EFL applied the OAD”—
owners and directors—
“test properly in relation to Mr Day and Mr Dale”,
the two owners of Bury football club.
“The question is whether the test as currently written is fit for purpose. In particular, it only looks at a narrow list of objective criteria, and does not take into account various other factors that speak to whether a new owner or director is a fit and proper person to own/run a member Club.”
When Mr Dale bought the club for £1, the fact that he had numerous previous failed businesses was not taken into account. The owners and directors test did not require that Mr Dale provide proof of funds—proof that he was able to sustainably run the football club—prior to purchase. That is utterly ludicrous and something that has to change, so I hope the Minister will touch on how the Bill will ensure that the regulation and the fit and proper person test are robust enough to keep people such as Steve Dale out of the ownership of clubs.
I find myself asking time and again how a regulator will be able to intervene in the running of football clubs, unless they have a huge amount of support staff. I accept fully that a business plan is put in place, but business plans can change. The situation at Bury was virtually criminal. On the car park at Gigg Lane, which was built in 1885, the previous owner sold 250 car parking spaces in a Ponzi scheme, some of them to poor Bury fans. These were essentially sold as a financial product that people would get a return from. He was selling these things to people around the world, and when the money ran out, the whole thing went boom. Nobody did anything about that. That was a unique situation, but would the regulator have the powers, the understanding and the knowledge to be able to intervene in acts of complete criminality such as that? I hope that it will, and I would very much welcome the Minister’s response to that.
Speaking of my experience of Bury Football Club, I was at Ramsbottom United on Saturday and 2,000 people were there. It was a North West Counties Premier League match between Ramsbottom and Bury. Bury bringing the best part of 2,000 people with them gave Ramsbottom United 25% of their total annual income. When we look at what it is about clubs that matter—the history, the heritage and everything else that we have talked about—we have to get to the heart of how clubs are run. After somebody gets through the fit and proper person test, after the first business plan fails and after the ambition comes in, how is the regulator going to be able to control that unless they have a massive amount of staff?
In my view, football clubs throughout the pyramid system are incredibly badly run. Most of them are subsidised by multimillionaires, and in any other way, shape or form they would not be businesses; they would be insolvent. They exist off largesse. We have seen some really great examples of clubs coming through the football pyramid that are completely and utterly reliant on one person’s millions. If that one person’s millions disappear, there is no football club. How do we regulate that in a way that allows for sustainability? Bury was badly run. It was badly let down by the EFL. I think and hope that if this legislation had been in place when the club was expelled from the league in 2019, it would have put the club in a better place. I will put a question mark after that, and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
First, I place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), who has always listened to supporters, and will be sorely missed. Much of this legislation comes from the efforts of the fan-led review. I also pay tribute to the FSA, to Kev Miles and to the Minister, who bear the scars of getting us here today.
This legislation has come about because football supporters have lost trust and faith in the current custodians of the game to protect football for the people who really matter, whose loyalty is often taken for granted. Football supporters, along with the working-class communities the game originates from, are too often now an afterthought, if indeed they are considered at all. At the bottom of the pyramid, there is a shocking, criminal lack of investment in the grassroots game, which should be accessible to all. This is something that the wonderful stalwart campaigner Kenny Saunders does so much to highlight via his Save Grassroots Football campaign.
At the top of the pyramid, clubs continue to price out working-class supporters and the next generation of their own support. This poses an existential threat to the very strands of the game that give English football its authenticity, passion and worldwide popularity. Football must therefore be very careful not to kill off the golden goose that provides these riches—the loyal supporter. It is worrying to see significant price rises again for next season at many clubs amid the cost of living crisis. Some lessons are not being learned, and the clubs must take heed.
The Premier League has done much good for the beautiful game, with stadiums now a world away from those in the ’80s and earlier, where in some cases horrific tragedies took place. English football is now seen as world-leading, and the Premier League’s community work is beyond reproach and actually world-leading. I have worked with the team at the Premier League on the issue of tragedy chanting, and I would like to put on record my thanks to Richard Masters and his team, the LFC Foundation, the Manchester United Foundation, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and Joe Blott representing the FSA.
However, despite its perceived success, the Premier League was powerless to prevent the attempted European super league breakaway in April 2021, with six of the 12 clubs coming from its ranks. The actions of those six clubs that attempted to end football as we know it and place the entire football pyramid in peril in their rush to form a European super league showed exactly why we need a football regulator to protect the interests of all. Shamefully, my own club, Liverpool, was part of that, but the collective fightback from supporters halted it in its tracks.
From the flames of that chaos, Liverpool fans then created what we hope is an exemplar model of fan engagement and influence to prevent clubs from making the same mistakes again. I am delighted that elements of this structure appear in the Bill: that is a tribute to the actions of Spirit of Shankly and the associated fan groups, and to the engagement of the UK-based element of Liverpool’s board. Fan engagement and influence must be in the heart of the Bill, because fans are the true custodians of the game, not the rogue club owners who will destroy the fertile ground that nurtures its roots. That is surely more of a commercial threat than a Bill that seeks, as the Premier League admits, only to embed normal business practice within the game. A good footballing organisation should not fear regulation; rather, it should welcome it.
The Bill currently gives the independent football regulator only partial oversight of financial sustainability, with no authority or oversight in respect of profit and sustainability rules. Football supporters are rightly demanding a transparent, proportionate, fair and timely system. The chaos and confusion caused by the Premier League’s handling of PSR has proved that it has not met these requirements. Many supporters, including Dave Kelly of Everton’s fan advisory board, are now calling for the football regulator to have full authority in relation to financial sustainability, in line with the recommendations of the fan-led review. They believe, and I share their view, that trust matters. The vast majority of this legislation will, I believe, begin to restore that trust, but it must go further.
Worryingly, given the importance of fan engagement, it is notable that the word “fan” appears only 16 times in the entire 140-page Bill. The interests of supporters must be adequately factored into governance and strategic decision making at the highest levels of the game, and the Bill must reflect that I would like to see independently elected fan representatives on the regulator board, the expert panel and the Premier League board. The expertise and experience of supporters must be hardwired into the decision making of the regulator and the Premier League. It is greatly missed, and it needs to be added to the Bill in Committee. Let us never forget what the great Jock Stein once said, which has resonated through the Chamber today: football without fans is nothing.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, and thank the whole ministerial team, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch). Their commitment has been fantastic, in respect of the fan-led review and all the other work that has been done. I would love to say more about that, but time does not permit it.
Occasionally people ask me whether this job is stressful, and my reply is always the same: it is nowhere near as stressful as 90 minutes on the terraces at Roots Hall. Although Southend United always give us a thundering performance, it is often not until the second half that they show their full skill and dominance of the game. However, the stress of being a Shrimper has been taken to a whole new level in the last two years, which is why I welcome the Bill.
For too long, football clubs like my own—Southend United—have been left at the mercy of unscrupulous owners who are either unwilling or unable to fulfil their obligations to the clubs and the fans. For too long, fans have suffered the making of vital decisions on their heritage with little or no consultation. For too long, there has been no focus on sustainability and future planning, which has left many clubs just one season away from insolvency. While I would normally be completely against the regulation of a successful industry like football, in this case I welcome the proposal for an independent regulator, which is absolutely necessary to put fans back where they belong—at the heart of English football.
To date, I have mentioned the plight of Southend United no fewer than 11 times in this place. Had it not been for the heroic actions of those at the club—the chief executive Tom Lawrence, the manager Kevin Maher, the players themselves who have somehow delivered week after week, the fans who cleaned and repaired the stadium so that we secured our health and safety certificates to start the season—we could well have lost 117 years of history. Against the instability of that background and the background of an outgoing owner who has been subjected to 19 winding-up petitions in 25 years, I welcome the strengthened owners and directors test. I particularly welcome clause 37 and the fact that the Bill removes any minimum number of bankruptcy events to disqualify a future owner.
However, instead of just punishing poor owners, I hope that the regulator will have a mechanism to reward the good owners who are making a positive and tangible difference to their club and community. Southend United Community and Educational Trust’s social value to the city of Southend and south-east Essex communities is measured at over £10 million a year. It gives back and encourages, so if there were a way for that to be rewarded, that would be a good improvement.
Southend United have a remarkable fanbase, so of course I welcome the detail in the Bill about engaging more with fans and hearing their voices. I would also mention supporters’ trusts. Almost every club will have a fantastic supporters’ trust. We have the Shrimpers Trust, ably led by Paul FitzGerald and James Schooley. I understand why supporters’ trusts are not named specifically in the Bill, but it would be nice if there were a way for such trusts to be recognised because of all their hard work and the engagement they have had with the ministerial team to make the Bill as good as it is.
I hope the regulator will be given the power it requires to mediate in all matters between the Premier League, the EFL and the National League, not just financial ones. Of course, I refer to last week’s concerning news regarding the unscrupulous scrapping of FA cup replays. Everybody knows the magic of the FA cup—every single person hearing those words will have a memory. For Southend United, the magic of the FA cup is best shown in 1979, when 31,000 spectators crammed into Roots Hall to witness their heroes taking on European champions, Liverpool. To put that into context, more than 11% of the entire city of Southend was engaged on that day. That is why it is so important we preserve the replays.
I appreciate the Bill has its sceptics, but I say there is not a moment to lose. Let’s get on with it. Let’s bring this Bill home.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am very pleased to finally be able to speak in today’s historic debate. A new independent football regulator is an important development, coming as a result of dysfunction in the game. I thank those who have worked hard to improve how football functions, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for producing the fan-led review, the Football Supporters’ Association and Fair Game. I thank Luton Town’s chief executive, Gary Sweet, for sharing his views on a number of occasions and, importantly, I thank members of Luton Town Supporters’ Trust and Loyal Luton, who have always been willing to meet me and tell me their views, because ultimately football is about the fans.
However, the status quo is failing fans across the country. While the premier league is arguably the most globally popular and commercially successful sporting competition, more than 60 clubs throughout the English league system have gone bust since it was established in 1992. The financial power at the top of the English game has distorted competition and powered unsustainable business practices as clubs scramble to be one of the elite 20 clubs at all costs. We all agree that the future sustainability of the pyramid is heavily reliant on securing a fair financial distribution deal between the Premier League and the pyramid system, not to mention preventing any potential re-emergence of the European super league plan.
We also have a multitude of examples that demonstrate the owners and directors test has not stopped dubious owners buying clubs and running them into the ground. We Lutonians sadly know the ugly side of the beautiful game better than most. Back in 2003, in response to Luton fans wanting to save their club, the previous Luton Town chairman, John Gurney, disgracefully said:
“If they expect me to walk away from Luton with nothing, I’ll make very sure there’s nothing to walk away from”.
This was from a person who had already recklessly suggested renaming the club, pushing for a merger with Milton Keynes-bound Wimbledon FC and, wait for it, attaching a Formula 1 circuit to a new 70,000-seat stadium on stilts. My personal favourite, which did see the light of day, was suggesting selecting the club’s next manager through “manager idol”, with texts costing 50p. That was all in the face of clear and vocal opposition from the fans. Thankfully, due to the work of a group of fans creating Trust in Luton, including one of its founding members, Gary Sweet, who is now Luton Town chief executive, control of the club was wrestled away from that disastrous ownership.
However, that was not the last time that fans had to step up to protect the club, as the fan-led 2020 consortium bought them out from yet further mismanagement after they went into administrative receivership in 2007. Unfortunately, the previous mismanagement led to a huge 30-point deduction and ultimately relegation to the national league. While it has not always been plain sailing, successes on and off the pitch since have enabled Luton Town now to compete at the pinnacle of English football—from non-league to the premier league. How did Luton Town do it? They ensured that they were a unified club from top to bottom, with a clear vision rooted in our Luton community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may, I will take the opportunity to celebrate a significant part of our Luton football heritage through the period by wishing Alison Taylor, the landlady of the Bricklayers Arms, a well-earned and relaxing retirement at the end of the season after 38 years of service.
I fully support the creation of the new independent football regulator to protect and promote the sustainability of English football, and particularly to safeguard the traditional features that matter most to fans and communities. I will put on the record a few initial concerns with the functioning of the regulator, as set out in the Bill. First, the regulator will have the backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcasting revenue between the Premier League and the wider pyramid if needed. It is important that we explore that to ensure that the regulator can facilitate a just and fair financial distribution deal, including parachute payments, and including the ability to initiate any regulation.
The regulatory principles in clause 8(b) do not make reference to fans or fan groups—or indeed players or employees—as groups that the regulator should proactively and constructively engage with. When I worked for a regulator in the health sector, we directly engaged with patients, so why would the regulator not directly engage with fans, who are the beneficiaries of football? I also have reservations about whether the Bill is sufficiently free from any vested interests. Further clarity may be needed to ensure that a person with a conflict of interest cannot be on the expert panel board.
The Bill is supported by so many of us on both sides of the House, and this is a historic moment. The game is not just a business, but one with deep roots in the nation’s identity and communities, which is central to our global appeal. I look forward to supporting the Opposition Front-Bench team in taking the Bill forward.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be here to welcome the Football Governance Bill. Football clubs sit at the heart of communities up and down the country. Family, friends and neighbours come together to watch games, win or lose. While providing role models as well as infrastructure, football clubs also inspire the next generation of footballing talent across every town, village and city. At the same time, English football is world leading. English clubs have fans on every continent, and the players and managers they attract are admired from all corners of the world. That combination of local togetherness and global acclaim is the envy of many.
As the shadow Secretary of State set out, the Premier League and its clubs have contributed billions to the economy and supported more than 90,000 jobs. This worldwide success has seen bigger revenues than ever coming into the game. But despite that, the financial sustainability of the English football pyramid is at risk.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) member for Luton South just outlined, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) and many others, too many fans are having their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and poor management. That could be Bury fans, who witnessed their club being expelled from the football league almost five years ago or, more recently, Reading fans, who shared with me their deep concern over the future of their club when I met them just a few months ago. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and indeed the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for their campaigning work on this issue.
There are clearly structural issues in the pyramid that must be addressed. Indeed, the fan-led review shone a clear light on the issues within the game, and I pay tribute and thanks to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for all her work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) noted, the debate is taking place on St George’s day, so I take the opportunity to wish the whole House a happy St George’s day.
I am supportive of the Bill and the principle of an independent regulator for football, with a strict and focused remit on the financial sustainability of the game and the ability to act with proportionality. Labour supports giving fans a greater say in their clubs, ensuring that owners and directors are stringently tested on their integrity, competence and financial soundness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) spoke about. It is also important to prevent any further attempts at a breakaway league, which puts financial gain before the all-important principles of competition and qualification based on merit.
In preparation for the Bill, I have met representatives from across the industry: from the Premier League and its clubs, the English Football League, the National League and the FA to the Football Supporters’ Association and supporters groups, including the Barnsley FC Supporters Trust. I know how important Barnsley football club are to my town, and I was pleased to watch them at Oakwell just a few weeks ago. While not everyone agrees on every detail of the Bill or with the shape that the regulator will take, there is a lot of agreement that English football offers something world-beating and special that must be protected for years to come. That is what I believe the Bill seeks to do, and I look forward to helping to shape it with careful scrutiny.
The regulator does not address all the issues facing football today, nor is it meant to, but some of those issues have understandably been spoken about in the debate. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) gave a thoughtful speech, and has brought forward a private Member’s Bill, on unauthorised entry to matches. His Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill is a proportionate intervention, designed to ensure the safety of fans by creating a specific offence for those attempting to enter stadiums without a ticket, and it has my support.
Over the weekend, we all saw the news that FA cup replays will be scrapped. That has understandably featured in this debate, with a number of Members raising their concerns. I believe it was the wrong choice, and fans will rightly have questions about how decisions are made that affect clubs all the way down the pyramid. The magic of the FA cup is that clubs from right down the football league, and indeed some non-league clubs, can compete with those at the very top.
At the moment, however, grassroots clubs across the country are facing difficulties, while contributing so much to communities, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) highlighted how important they are to the football pipeline. The clubs in my Barnsley East constituency—Wombwell Town, Worsbrough Bridge AFC and Wombwell Main—all contribute so much to the community. Hundreds of young people and adults play there every week, but the latter two face flooding issues at their facilities. In the case of Wombwell Main, which I visited a few weeks ago, flooding is causing multiple game cancellations. That is sadly typical of grassroots football across the country, which provides the foundations for both players and fans.
It is right that the regulator is strict in scope, covering the financial sustainability of the top five leagues, but a big part of that is to give fans a meaningful say in their club. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister on the strength of the measures for fans within the Bill. There has been a lot of rhetoric about how football must be for the fans, but is the Minister confident that the Bill’s provisions will live up to expectations and give fans the voice they deserve? I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I thank the Committee for its work and the fact that it has agreed to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the new chair of the independent regulator once there is a preferred candidate in place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Eltham (Clive Efford) both spoke about this issue, and I pay tribute to both of them for all the work in this area, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne); I know there has been keen interest in the issue of the so-called backstop powers and the ability of the regulator to intervene in the distribution of broadcasting revenue throughout the pyramid. That is an unprecedented power and must be carefully crafted in order to achieve its aims. Can the Minister assure Members across the House that the regulator will be given all the targeted powers it needs to secure the sustainability of the pyramid, as per its primary purpose?
Given that players and staff at clubs are often the first to notice that the club is experiencing financial difficulties, and that their livelihoods will be directly impacted, it seems odd that they are not mentioned once in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) pointed out. Can the Minister explain why that is? The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) also made some important points on that subject.
I ask for a little more detail on some of the work being undertaken to ensure that the regulator hits the ground running. For example, what progress has been made on the shadow regulator, and is there any more detail on how the expert panel, which will be responsible for much of the regulator’s decision making, will be appointed? My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) brought up the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion in football clubs. It will be for the regulator to decide what is contained within the corporate governance code of practice, but that is one of the issues that I would expect it to consider.
Before I conclude, I would like to touch on women’s football. There is widespread agreement that placing the women’s game in scope of the regulator would not be right at this stage. The Carney review revealed a number of pressing issues in the women’s game, including poor pay, professional standards, mental health support and union representation. It is important that we take them seriously. It is crucial that we ensure the financial sustainability of the men’s game, but that should not result in resources being stripped from the women’s game. I would therefore welcome an update from the Minister today on what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Carney review, and on the Department’s plans for protecting the future of women’s football as part of the Bill.
To conclude, I thank all those involved in the Bill: my opposite number, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the civil servants, the clubs and, of course, the fans. Labour has long committed to reviewing football governance. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to preserve the future of our nation’s favourite sport. We can and must get it right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I thank all Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions, and I am grateful for learning about the first black professional footballer, Arthur Wharton, from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I am pleased to hear the broad support for what the Government are proposing, and I am grateful for it. I am also grateful for the continued engagement with colleagues as we have prepared for the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rightly pointed out the successes of English football, and the contribution it makes to our economy and the pride of our nation, but it is important to remember why we are here today. My very first meeting when I was appointed as Minister was with fans’ groups. I heard at first hand their experiences of when it all goes horribly wrong—even to the point of having to boycott their own club for five years, in one instance. The fans felt unheard. We know that clubs are more than just football clubs. When they go into administration and are run down, the fans are obviously in despair, but that also has a significant impact on the wider community because they are more than football clubs; they are community assets.
That is why we committed to the fan-led review. Like everyone else, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) and to the people who helped her, including Kevin Miles from the Football Supporters’ Association. The review was the foundation for the White Paper, and now we have the Bill today. I thank all those who engaged with us for all they have done: the FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, the FSA and the Select Committee. I also want to put my particular thanks on the record to the officials in the Department. I cannot tell the House how many hours they have put in; they have been first rate and I thank them a great deal.
I want to focus, in the short time I have left, on some of the points that were raised. Many issues were raised and I will try to get through as many of them as I can, but I am happy to engage with colleagues afterwards if need be. When constructing the Bill, we have been careful to ensure that it is carefully drafted, considered and proportionate, and that it provides an advocacy-first approach; and that there is focus on the clubs where it is needed, and we make sure it is proportionate to their place in the pyramid.
A number of Members raised the owners and directors test. Too many clubs have been brought to the brink with unsuitable owners taking over, stripping them of assets and refusing to adequately fund them. That is why we are bringing in strong statutory tests to help prevent unsuitable owners at the point of entry, before they can do harm to clubs. Prospective individuals will be prohibited from becoming club owners unless the regulator has determined beforehand that they are suitable. They must pass a fitness test, which means: they have the requisite honesty and integrity; are financially sound; have passed the source of wealth test to ensure that their wealth is not connected to illicit finance; and have a plan and the resources to run the club.
Even once an owner is in place at a club, the regulator will still be able to make sure that they continue to be suitable. If it has grounds for concern about their suitability, it can test them on their fitness and their source of wealth. If it finds them unsuitable, they will have to sell the club. To prevent further harm being done to the club during the sale process, the regulator will have the powers to limit the owner’s involvement in the club, and if the unsuitable owner ultimately refuses to sell the club, the regulator will have the powers to step in and force a sale as a last resort. Strengthened tests and robust powers to remove unsuitable owners will mean that fans have the suitable owners that they deserve.
Hon. Members asked about what would happen if a club’s owners were forced to divest. Let me be clear: we hope that such a circumstance will be incredibly rare. The regulator’s objective is to promote clubs’ financial sustainability, and it will introduce tests on governance and financial oversight, which will greatly reduce the likelihood of financial distress and make football more resilient in the long term. For example, we will ensure that the regulator is able to look at a liquidity buffer, which could provide the club with time to seek a new owner, and the regulator will have the power to test an incumbent owner where it has grounds for concern about their suitability.
Almost every Member mentioned the backstop, and I repeat that we want football to come up with a deal itself; it is the best option, and this delay serves no one. We need to remember that we are talking about a commercial arrangement—businesses giving businesses money—which is why we believe it is best that football does it, but we recognise that there is no deal at the moment. That is precisely why we have put provisions in the Bill for a backstop—something to fall back on—so that they can consider the relevant revenues.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Does my right hon. Friend agree with my interpretation of clause 55, which is that international broadcast income is included in the relevant revenue for redistribution? That is currently not the case for solidarity payments. If it is the case, has this issue come up in his discussions with the Premier League?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I have had dozens of meetings with the Premier League, but as far as I can recall, I do not think that it has raised carving out international broadcast revenue in those discussions, which have always revolved around the net media revenues and the aggregate revenue received by both the Premier League and the EFL; she raises a very interesting point.
Some say that the regulator should be able to trigger the backstop right at the outset. Frankly, that would just be a frontstop, and it may hinder a deal being struck by football itself, but the Bill provides that if there is no deal because one has not been offered or one side cannot sign it because it is not a good deal, that side can ask the regulator to trigger the backstop.
Members have mentioned parachute payments, and I am always happy to meet colleagues to discuss and look at that matter further, particularly in Committee. I am also happy to organise a briefing, if that would be helpful, because it is quite a complex issue. Parachute payments play an important role in the sustainability of the system by softening the financial blow of relegation, and removing them could have adverse effects. Look at Bradford City: when they were relegated from the premier league in 2001, there were no parachute payments, and the following season they went into administration.
Stuart Andrew
I literally have two minutes. I have offered a briefing, and we can have this debate afterwards.
We realise that parachute payments can have a distortive impact, particularly in the championship, which is why the regulator has the power to address any structural or systemic issues through its licensing regime. Any distortion created by parachute payments also has the potential to be addressed through distribution to non-parachute payment clubs; that is exactly what the regulator will be able to look at as part of the backstop. Leading experts have advised us to keep the backstop targeted and simple, which we have done, and to design it so that it may never need to be triggered, which we have also done. As such, we do not think it is appropriate to include parachute payments in the backstop, nor we do think it is necessary to do so, as we have ensured that the regulator will be able to address any distortive effects that they cause via the licensing regime.
I am running out of time to answer more questions. This is a landmark Bill for football. It has been carefully designed to celebrate the sport’s success and encourage investment, but it is about providing stability for clubs, sustaining the pyramid and putting fans at the heart. We recognise that there are many successes, but it is important that we tackle the issues. The IFR will be focused on football, focused on financial stability and focused on fans.
I close by playing on the iconic words of 1966. Too many fans have seen their club on the brink, and they think it’s all over. Well, it’s not now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Football Governance Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Football Governance Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 6 June 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Football Governance Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football Governance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Stuart Andrew.)
Question agreed to.
Football Governance Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football Governance Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of a levy by the Independent Football Regulator in connection with the exercise of its functions under the Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Stuart Andrew.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I am presenting a petition that is jointly sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). We consider the toll to be an extra tax on our constituents and local businesses.
The petition is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox). I congratulate the Tamar Toll Action Group, the Road Haulage Association and Councillors Lennox-Boyd and Tivnan on helping to gather more than 6,300 signatures.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to refuse permission for an increase in the tolls this year.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Cornwall & Devon,
Declares that they do not want to see a toll increase on the Tamar Crossings in 2024.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to refuse permission for an increase in the tolls this year.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002929]
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This petition is from the residents of Walsall South. The petitioners note that
“people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.”
Some of them have found it very difficult to access their medical records over a long time, and today’s urgent question does not leave them any clearer about when they will get compensation.
“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.”
There are signatories to the petition who have been directly affected by the failure to implement the recommendations.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Walsall 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.]
[P002954]
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Department for Education has so far expressed indifference to the parents, pupils and teachers at St Leonard’s following the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete crisis. With exams imminent, the Department must now listen to the petitioners and provide the pupils with the mitigating circumstances they deserve.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Department for Education is not doing enough to mitigate the anxieties and stress of the parents, pupils and teachers at St. Leonard’s Catholic School in City of Durham following on from the disruption caused by RAAC; further declares that pupils at St. Leonard's Catholic School have not been offered mitigating circumstances for the disruption to their education caused by RAAC.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to ensure that the Secretary of State for Education can provide the pupils at St. Leonard's Catholic School mitigating circumstances for their exams this year, and all those who suffer similar circumstances.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002959]
Derbyshire County Council
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before I call Mr Perkins, may I inform the House that permission has been given to the House Photographer to move around parts of the Chamber and take photographs in the course of this debate—that has consent?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Let us hope he gets my best side, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the vital issue of Derbyshire County Council’s funding and governance. The services that people in our county receive have diminished so much, and although the Minister and his Department must take their share of the blame, it is also important to have an opportunity to detail the ways in which the county council’s leadership have added to their problems.
Since the Government came to power here in Westminster, Derbyshire County Council’s budget has been slashed by £780 million in real terms. In 2010, its budget was about £1 billion, which is £1.48 billion in today’s money, but Derbyshire County Council’s current budget is £700 million. Therefore, it is less than half of what it was 14 years ago in real terms. At a time of great financial hardship, not least because of the runaway inflation unleashed by the Conservative party, it is a disgraceful and heartbreaking situation.
These cuts have a material effect on the provision of services and on people’s lives. Next week, the council will decide whether to go ahead with its proposal to close 10 children’s centres across the region, not only denying essential services to the children and families of Derbyshire, but potentially costing 118 people their livelihoods. Centres at risk of closure include Holme Hall and Old Whittington in my constituency, and those in Alfreton, Ironville, Langley Mill, Bolsover, Hadfield, Gamesley, Matlock, and Charnos, in Ilkeston.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I am trying to understand this: Derbyshire County Council has had its moneys reduced at the same time as its population has grown, and so the demands on the moneys it has have grown. Is there not something illogical, unfair and immoral with that happening, in this case to Derbyshire’s council?
Mr Perkins
It would not be an Adjournment debate without the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and I am grateful to him for it, because his point is well made. The budget cuts we have seen in Derbyshire have come alongside an increase in the population and there is an argument, which many of us in Derbyshire have made, that the authority has been particularly badly treated on the finances. The point he makes is a very valid one.
When the UK and Derbyshire were both run by Labour administrations, there were 56 of these children’s centres, but after 14 years, if these plans are approved, there will be just 12. The centres provide essential services such as health visits, speech and language development, healthy eating, parenting, school readiness, family support, parenting groups and help to improve family relationships. We know that the work done by the staff in the centres has a massive benefit to the children and families that they help.
I was first elected to this place in 2010. During the election campaign, the issue of whether Sure Start was safe if the Conservatives were elected was a key plank of the Labour party campaign. The Conservatives furiously denied Gordon Brown’s claims that one in five Sure Start centres would be endangered if the Conservatives were elected. Well, in Derbyshire, Gordon Brown was indeed wrong: we have seen not one in five of these children centres close, but four in five. Now, the Government wonder why they are spending more than ever on the costs of failure, but they have failed to invest in the early years. When the Minister responds, can he tell us whether he believes that the loss of 44 of Derbyshire’s 56 children centres during the past 14 years of a Conservative Government is primarily down to electing a Conservative Government or down to electing a Conservative council?
We will come on in due course to the authority’s failings in special needs education, but at every school I visit, experienced headteachers say to me that they have never seen so many children with serious special needs. Has anyone in the Government considered whether the stripping away of these early years services may be contributing to the huge increase in the number of children presenting on their first day at school without being school ready and often in need of support with speech and language, dressing and toileting?
The authority got in touch with me and with other Derbyshire MPs to ask us to lobby Ministers for more money, which I and many other MPs did, as the authority was being charged excessive amounts by private providers of children’s services. Derbyshire has embarked on a savage programme of privatisation of services and so would be vulnerable to private sector overcharging, because it has crippled the strong publicly provided services that it inherited.
One feature of this Administration’s approach has been the unfortunate habit of marrying serial incompetence with careless arrogance and indifference to public opinion. The closure of these buildings is a case in point. Jon Pearce, Labour’s parliamentary candidate in High Peak, has teamed up with local Labour councillors to support the community’s plan to create a community hub and preserve the centre at Gamesley, which houses a youth club and boxing club in one of Derbyshire’s most deprived communities. Those clubs were shocked to receive a call out of the blue from DCC to say that they had a matter of weeks to find another venue, because the decision had already been made to close the building.
The community is attempting to form a constituted community organisation and has secured a three-month extension, but it is engaged in a race against time. We have also recently heard that Derbyshire County Council is looking to close two thirds of the care homes that it manages, as well as eight older people day centres. The right to dignity in old age is a sacred covenant in this country. Old people should know that when they work hard for their entire life and make a contribution to society, they should be able to retire with a degree of comfort and security. I feel that the covenant is now disintegrating before our eyes.
The governor from a school in Brampton was in such despair at the situation that she attended the most recent full meeting of Derbyshire County Council to set out that, to meet budgetary constraints while continuing to deliver the required level of care, the school is being forced to cut 160 teaching hours a week.
The cost of living crisis, spiralling rents and ever increasing mortgage rates are destroying the social contract in real time, and the inability of a council to provide services that facilitate for the most in need is a damning indictment of 14 years of Tory rule and local mismanagement. This situation could mean 162 vulnerable residents being turfed out on to the street. The council is now closing its own centres and using the private sector more—it is spending more and getting less. Spending on private care homes has increased by 61% since 2018-19, at a time when the authority has had to close seven of its own care homes, losing 156 beds. It has also closed 140 beds in its remaining 16 care homes and has around 30 vacancies. Where is the county’s duty of care to those living in its care homes? It is not as if the council is efficient. While Labour-run Chesterfield continues to enjoy the lowest council tax in the country, the Tory administration on the council has raised council tax by almost 5%. The need for social care for adults is only going to grow and grow as people live longer lives. I am sure we can all agree that this is a good problem to have, but more funding is needed from Government if councils are to be able to provide essential services such as this. Can the Minister set out the guidance he has provided to county councils and authorities to plan for the delivery of services in the context of demographic change and real-terms cuts to budgets?
The children of Derbyshire are suffering massively under the current council leadership, too. Spending on private schools for children with special needs has increased from £5.7 million in 2018-19 to £24 million in 2023-24, according to the schools forum report, while investment in council provision falters. At almost every single one of my weekly surgeries, I have parents in attendance who have children with special needs who are unable to get into a dedicated special needs establishment. Often, these children are excluded from their mainstream school—these children are missing months or, in some cases, years of their schooling—and are unable to make a mainstream placement work, but unable to access specialist provision.
It can now be revealed that, throughout this period of hardship, Derbyshire County Council has received around £17.5 million of capital funding from the Department for Education since 2019 for additional special school places, but has spent a paltry £1.5 million. That means £16 million, or 91% of the budget it has received, is sat in Derbyshire County Council’s coffers, while parents of special needs children lose sleep every night at the lack of provision in our county. It is nothing short of a betrayal of those parents and their children. What can the Minister do to work with colleagues in the Department for Education to get this dysfunctional authority to deliver special needs placements for Derbyshire children?
The case of Brampton Primary School, which I referred to earlier, encapsulates all that is wrong with Derbyshire County Council’s budget allocation and service delivery. The school has an excellent special needs unit, but also has a tremendous reputation for how it has supported special needs children within its mainstream provision. As a result of this reputation, many parents from well outside the Brampton catchment area who have special needs children will choose it for their children. However, this reputation for inclusivity comes at a tremendous cost to Brampton.
The primary school has 317 children on its roll, with 31% of these children having SEN. It is proud of its reputation for creating a supportive environment for children who have additional needs, but each child who has an education, health and care plan has the first £6,000 of their extra costs covered by the school before any central funding comes in. On top of that, dozens of children are waiting for special needs assessments from the overwhelmed county council education service. While the children and their families wait for their assessment to be heard, the school receives no additional funding for these pupils at all.
A school that has gone out of its way to support those who have the greatest needs is crushing into the rocks of an inadequate funding mechanism and a county education service that is failing to support those children. Can the Minister explain how we can ensure that schools such as Brampton are not penalised for their own success in supporting special needs children?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I agree with the points he is making about the need for Derbyshire County Council to get EHCP assessments done much more quickly and much more accurately than they are currently. I pay tribute to the three special schools in my constituency, especially Alfreton Park, which is a brand new—rebuilt—school that was opened last year, which is a sign that there has been some investment.
Does the hon. Member agree with me about the importance of keeping respite care centres open? That is not least to provide parents with a bit of a break, but also because, if they close, there is a real risk that some parents will not be able to cope, and we will end up with the cost of having those kids in full-time residential care and costing the county council more. It is also the last thing parents want to happen.
Mr Perkins
I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the special educational needs placements he talks about. Their work is outstanding. I was intending to be at Ashgate Croft School on Monday, but, unfortunately, I was unable to make it, and I will be returning there soon. He is right about the importance of respite care, and the perverse impact that cutting those services ends up having on the amount of money the authority spends. I agree with him on both those points. Although the council’s budget has been dramatically reduced by the Government since 2010, its use of the precious available funds has been nothing short of appalling. Budgetary constraints have produced an atmosphere of pressure within public sector delivery bodies, and I have a profound respect and pride for workers doing their utmost in trying circumstances, but the leadership of the council can and must do better.
Derbyshire enjoys the dubious honour of being the pothole capital of the UK. The Beatles may have sung about 10,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire, but research by Mac’s Truck Rental found that Derbyshire was home to over 90,000 potholes, and I am pretty sure I have been over them all. Potholes are a serious problem, with profound consequences for road users and public safety. At the behest of a constituent, I recently drove from Ashgate Avenue along Old Road towards Old Brampton, and then to Loundsley Green. The number of potholes I saw on that stretch alone was staggering. I have had to replace two tyres and a spring this winter, and the state of our roads is the No. 1 local issue raised by my constituents when we are out speaking to them on the doorstep. While potholes are a danger for drivers, they are lethal for cyclists.
I have not yet found the courage to tell the enraged motorists of Chesterfield that the Conservative leader of Derbyshire County Council claims that the council is one of the best in the country at pothole repairs, but I have seen how a penny-pinching approach creates even more work for the council, often returning to the same holes over and over again. Some 24% of Derbyshire’s principal roads need repair, compared with the second worst county councils, Kent and Sussex, at 6%, way below. The leader of the county council, Mr Lewis, was closer to the mark when he admitted that his authority adopted a
“patch-up and sticking plaster approach”
to improving our roads. When the figures are investigated it all becomes clear: Derbyshire spends just £54.81 per head on road repairs, the lowest in the country, with an average spend across councils of £86. Derbyshire is allocating 36% less than the average council per head on road repairs. No wonder potholes are so omnipresent across our county.
The council has no plan for co-ordinating disruption to road services from different organisations, so why do the Government not adopt Labour’s plan to have oversight of those contractors so that motorists do not go through the inconvenience of a road being dug up and patched up by one contractor, only for someone else to dig it up again the next week? Having benefited from support throughout covid, instead of investing extra money in its services the council chose to award Tory councillors by creating additional cabinet posts, and lifting its spend while cutting back on services. It also scrapped the chief executive role only to create the post of managing director who, at a princely £176,000, is paid more than the Prime Minister and is a £38,000 increase on the previous incumbent.
I am afraid the answers for Derbyshire lie at its own door. The services provided by Derbyshire bear no relationship to those that existed in 2009 when Derbyshire and Britain were run by Labour Administrations. We cannot go on like this. On 2 May the voters of Derbyshire have an opportunity to send a message to those who have let our county down so badly, vote for a Labour Mayor and police and crime commissioner, and start the process of rebuilding our shattered public services in our beautiful county.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. A competition of trying to judge the difference between him and a ray of sunshine would not be difficult to engage in, because if one listened to him, one would think all was doom and gloom and bleakness in Derbyshire. Let me assure him, and my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) who are in the Chamber this evening, that in no way, shape or form is Derbyshire County Council on any red list or radar-flashing screen in my Department. That is good news for the residents and service users of Derbyshire. At this juncture, let me also put on record my thanks, as we all should, to all those officers and councillors, irrespective of party, who turn up day in, day out to serve their communities and to try to make things a little better for people in Derbyshire. They deserve our thanks.
The hon. Gentleman referenced in some detail—understandably so, as I am not seeking to dismiss his concerns in any way—children’s centres and other services provided to young people. Those, as he will know, are properly and in great respect in the domain of the Department for Education. I will not intrude upon other Ministers’ portfolios, but I undertake to the hon. Gentleman—I hope this will serve as a sort of holding reply—to ensure that my colleagues in the DFE are aware of his remarks and concerns and respond accordingly and appropriately.
There is little to no doubt that the funding scenario for local government in England has been challenging, and it would be foolish of any Local Government Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and say it has not. It clearly has been, and that was recognised in the additional £600 million that we provided to the local government funding settlement this year. The funding formula has creaked and groaned under stresses and strains over many years. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out—he is not unique in doing so; virtually every conversation I have with anybody with an interest in or representing the concerns of local government draws attention to it—the two almost unstoppable trajectories of growth demand: in special educational needs and the support services that wrap around that area of local government service; and, at the other end of the age spectrum, in adult social care. Those are good news stories in themselves, because they are testimony to the success of the national health service in supporting people in their lives and ensuring that they are fit and healthy. Those things lead to additional and growing demands on the services of local government. Local government is rising to that challenge across the piece magnificently, but there is always work to do.
It is recognised across the two Front Benches that the funding formula does not need tinkering with or a little tweak here and there—it effectively needs dismantling and starting from scratch. Such things as the use of data to inform, the ability to define need, the ability to respect and reflect upon the differentials in need demand in rural versus urban, and in coastal as well, as was dealt with yesterday in oral questions, should all play into that. That is why I am talking to council leaderships across the country and to the wider sector about where we think the formula should land in the next Parliament.
The formula cannot be ignored, because we all want, particularly reflecting in this 50th year since the local government reforms of 1974, to find a robust and sustainable way forward, so that the future of English local government can continue for the next 25 to 50 years. Post covid, the sector asked the Government for stability and certainty. We have delivered that by not instigating a major review of the formula. As I say, that is a job for the next Parliament.
It is worthwhile just to look at the figures for Derbyshire County Council. Its managing director, Emma Alexander, has by her own admission described the council—and I agree with her assessment—as being sound and stable financially. That is good news for council tax payers and service users of Derbyshire because it means that, against that backdrop of sound and stable finances, informed and proper decisions and changes can be taken rather than knee-jerk reactions in response to pressures outwith the council’s control.
The council and Ms Alexander are realistic enough to highlight that the council’s next focus—its immediate focus—has to be on modernisation, implementing what they describe as “one council” working and new transformational strategic plans for the whole of Derbyshire. I think that that will drive efficiency. One can only hope that in that drive of improved efficiency, services will improve still further for the residents of Derbyshire.
This year’s settlement for the county council was a significant increase in core spending power of 8.3% on the previous year, up £54.88 million, making available a total of £715.3 million for 2024-25. The hon. Gentleman referenced some of the work done through the social care grant. It now means that for 2024-25 Derbyshire is receiving £140.2 million through that grant. Last year, of course, the Government awarded £70 million of levelling-up capital funding to the Derbyshire region, including £50 million for the South Derby growth zone and £20 million for Chesterfield town centre.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman—and I think that in his heart of hearts he knows this—that one should look not just at the cold figure of the money produced, as important as that is, in the local government finance settlement, but at the broader ranges of support and intervention that the Government are providing across Derbyshire, including the town deal, the accelerated towns fund, the levelling up fund, the community ownership fund, the future high streets fund, the long-term plan for towns, levelling up culture, capital regeneration, the UK shared prosperity fund, the UK shared prosperity fund multiplier, the community renewal fund, levelling up partnerships and levelling up parks, all of which have generated significant sums of money for Derbyshire, alongside the grant and council tax-raising ability of the county council, to deliver services for local people.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
May I say on behalf of the people of Derbyshire Dales that we are immensely grateful for the £13.5 million of levelling-up funds, without which the town of Ashbourne would be going back in time instead of looking to the future? There is also the shared prosperity fund. One of my towns, Matlock, will receive a lot of money and do a lot of good work. My experience of how the Government and the county council have reacted and responded to the needs of my constituents is very different from that of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).
I have had over 30,000 emails since my election, and a great number of them have been about local councils, SEND provision, potholes and other matters. The management of the county council by the Conservatives has been very good, and there is always more work to do. Who could not spend more money on SEND? These issues are precious to us, but given the money that is available, my experience is very different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I am worried that these matters have been brought up at this stage, mid-election, when really we need to look at the facts. Derbyshire County Council could always do with more money, but it manages the money that it has really well. The leader, Barry Lewis, is particularly good. He is a credit to us all.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the upbeat fillip, which we needed to hear from a representative of Derbyshire. I am delighted to hear that her constituents —and I suggest probably the constituents of Chesterfield, Erewash, Bolsover, across the Amber Valley, South Derbyshire, Clay Cross, Staveley and Long Eaton—are pleased to see the attention on them to deliver levelling up and make sure that those engines of growth, livelihood and success can be sustained.
I am convinced by the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) to deliver the East Midlands Combined County Authority. A £1.14 billion devolution deal for the wider west midlands to drive growth and boost opportunity demonstrates yet again—if demonstration were still needed—our commitment to devolving more money and power to local leaders. The establishment of the East Midlands CCA will open the way to providing considerable funding for the area. The combined county authority will have control of £38 million a year. That can be well spent and maximised with the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who is standing head and shoulders above the other candidates for the post of Mayor. I wish him well. I wish the people of Derbyshire well. This Government stand behind them, ready to serve them, to meet their local and central Government needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024
Draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh
(7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 14 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The draft order and the draft guidance issued under section 110(1) of the Deregulation Act 2015 were laid before the House on 6 March 2024.
I am pleased to initiate this debate, and I emphasise the Government’s commitment to upholding rigorous parliamentary scrutiny for statutory instruments that impact the UK’s independent regulators. The draft statutory instrument and guidance we are debating relate to the growth duty, a duty that requires specified regulators to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when exercising certain regulatory functions. Regulators within the scope of this duty need to consider the potential impact of their activities and their decisions on economic growth, and ensure that any regulatory action they take is necessary and proportionate.
The growth duty applies to more than 50 regulators and came into statutory effect on 29 March 2017 under the Deregulation Act 2015. The regulators already covered include the Environment Agency, the Care and Quality Commission and the Gambling Commission. At present, the growth duty does not apply to the utilities regulators, which are the Office of Communications, also known as Ofcom, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets or Ofgem, and the Water Services Regulation Authority or Ofwat. The draft instrument will extend the growth duty to those regulators, which oversee industry sectors accounting for 13% of annual private UK investment and about 4% of UK GDP. By extending the growth duty, we will ensure that those critical regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth.
The Department for Business and Trade has also prepared refreshed related statutory guidance to provide greater clarity to support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The draft refreshed guidance identifies drivers of growth and behaviours of smarter regulation to assist regulators better to ensure proportional regulation and support sustainable economic growth.
Regulators play a vital role in shaping the UK economy through the way in which they regulate. It is therefore critical that regulation is cognisant of the requirements of growth. A good regulatory environment emerging from the attentive and responsive stewardship of an effective regulator can create the conditions for business confidence and investment, sensible risk taking, and innovation. Together, the extension of the growth duty and the revised guidance will support a positive shift in how regulation is delivered, driving growth and paving the way for businesses to start and grow.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
We have discussed the actions of other regulators under the Minister’s remit on a number of occasion. Can he give us some examples of when actions of the water or energy regulators under the existing system have been detrimental to economic growth? The views I get from the public are that that is not where the biggest failing in the regulatory system is.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think it is about ensuring that regulators are proportionate in their decision making and take into account the needs for economic growth. For example, speed of decision making is pretty important to someone who is investing in our economy—they want to ensure that there is a consistent framework and that, where changes are made, they are done quickly and with the input of businesses. The feedback we are hearing is that that is not always the case. As I said, from 2017 this regime was implemented for 50 other regulators, and the sky has not fallen in yet on those sectors when any changes have been made to the system.
I understand there is a perception that the growth duty may conflict with environmental duties or enforcement of protections. That is absolutely not the case. The draft refreshed growth duty statutory guidance sets out in the opening paragraph the importance of ensuring
“adequate protections for consumers and the environment.”
The growth duty does not and will not legitimise non-compliance with other duties or objectives, and its purpose is not to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of necessary protections. The guidance also identifies environmental sustainability as one of the seven drivers of economic growth. We set out in the guidance that natural capital and the ecosystems in which we live are fundamental to economic growth and therefore need to be safeguarded for economic growth to be sustained.
The draft SI will ensure that economic growth can form part of regulators’ decision making and purpose, thus supporting the change in behaviour being sought. By requiring the regulators to consider the growth duty, they will be empowered to consider areas that may not be reflected or may be only partly reflected in their duties, such as promoting innovation or trade growth.
The growth duty is not prescriptive and does not mandate particular actions, nor does it create a hierarchy over existing regulatory duties. The draft refreshed guidance is clear that regulators, as independent and experienced bodies, are best placed to balance their own decision making in that regard. The Government have also committed to review the impact of the extension of the SI within the related impact assessment, and will consider the impact and effectiveness of the growth duty on investment, growth, the environment and other factors in detail at the committed review point.
The draft refreshed guidance outlines drivers of sustainable economic growth supported by case studies, examples to provide clarity to regulators within scope of the duty and to help them promote growth. The guidance also identifies behaviours that contribute to good regulatory decision making and smarter regulation. The purpose of the guidance is to assist regulators to give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their decisions on economic growth. The revised guidance encourages transparency and accountability for growth across regulators, with the aim of attracting investment and creating jobs.
The proposals are necessary to ensure that the energy, water and communications sectors strive for maximum efficiency over a sustained period. The draft refreshed guidance makes it clear that regulators should work with businesses on, among other things, the environment, trade, investment and skills to ensure sustainable medium to long-term economic growth. That will ensure that current-day economic growth can be achieved without undermining the ability of future growth. The refreshed growth duty guidance will support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The Secretary of State’s overarching priority is to support businesses and grow the economy, which is what this draft instrument and supporting guidance seek to achieve today. I commend them to the Committee.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I thank the Minister for introducing the draft proposals, which will cover three of the UK’s regulators, Ofwat, Ofgem and Ofcom. As the Minister set out, the regulations we are considering concern the growth duty under section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires particular regulators to consider how best to promote economic growth as they exercise their core functions. We recently saw the growth duty expanded to the financial services regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and there are now more than 50 regulators bound by the growth duty.
This draft legislation will see the growth duty expanded to Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom, and will therefore mean that those regulators will also have to consider how their functions can promote economic growth. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out some of the lessons learned from the experience of the regulators that already have the growth duty built into their objectives.
Labour recognises the importance of the water, energy and communications sectors to our economy and the vital role that the three regulators under discussion play in shaping those sectors. We agree in principle with the need for those regulators to formally recognise their role in contributing to economic growth where viable. However, as I am sure many colleagues will agree—the Minister has already alluded to this point—such a move has the potential to create frictions or opposing and competing demands on regulators as they carry out their core regulatory functions. We must make sure that we strive for sustainable economic growth that is forward looking, inclusive and based on strong and secure foundations.
As the Minister will be aware, where the competitiveness duty was introduced in the regulation of financial services, there were extensive discussions, which as members of the Treasury Committee he and I were a part of, about making sure that the regulator’s primary objective of stability did not conflict with that of competitiveness. Much work has been done and lessons have been learned about how to make sure those things happen appropriately and do not cause confusion within the regulatory system, as well as out there in the market.
I am sure it has not escaped Members’ attention that, of the three regulators under consideration, Ofwat is already under significant scrutiny and pressure. Last year saw the highest number of sewage discharges on record. There will, rightly, be public concern that additional duties, while welcome, should not create an additional set of pressures that are hard to deliver on. I hope the Minister can shed more light today on how the regulators can fulfil existing duties as well as the new duty.
After 14 years of this Government being in power, the sewage scandal has resulted in waters and open spaces across the country being polluted with filthy raw sewage. Not one English river is classified as being in a healthy condition. None meet good chemical standards and few meet good ecological standards. Environment Agency data shows that sewage has been dumped every 2.5 minutes since 2016. Not only have the Government allowed the water companies to dump sewage and neglect our vital water infrastructure, some of the companies responsible have been rewarded, through allowing shareholders to receive dividends and water bosses to pocket bonuses. I know this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I hope he will take note of the public concerns about the need for strict regulation to make sure standards are met and people do not suffer the consequences of neglect.
Given the pressures on Ofwat, can the Minister tell us how confident he is that it has the appropriate resources to not only fulfil its current duties but also respond to the growth duty? Does it and the other regulators have the expertise within their institutions to be able to focus on the growth duty? If we want the growth duty to be effective and successful, it is important that the people within those institutions are able to work with the industry and with Government to make sure that it is meaningful.
The economic impact assessment estimated that the familiarisation costs of the growth duty would have some resource implications. Will the Minister make those resource implications clear? Can they be met within existing budgets or are additional resources needed? Will they be provided?
I also seek assurances from the Minister that the regulator’s core consumer and environmental responsibilities will not be jeopardised by this move. I am assured by some of the points that he has already made, but could he say more about precisely how his Department and other relevant Departments will work with the regulators to make sure that they have a clear understanding of the need to meet their respective commitments and obligations?
Understandably, many respondents to the Government’s consultation shared concerns, with 25% opposing the changes. To that end, while we welcome the Government updating the statutory guidance, as the Minister has referred to, to clarify how the growth duty should fit within the regulators’ existing obligations, it would be helpful to have more information on precisely how that will be done. Given the delicacy and importance of regulators’ roles in policing their various sectors, how do the Government intend to closely monitor the impact of these changes in a timely manner?
As an example related to Ofcom, could the Minister imagine a situation where the expanded growth mandate could result in the green light being given to a takeover that could compromise our national security and a free and fair media, or lead to one provider dominating the media landscape? He will be aware of examples where foreign Governments have sought to buy stakes in our media, and so on. Are there provisions in place that cover those concerns and that he is comfortable with? If not, what further steps can be made to reassure the public that the growth duty, while welcome, necessary and helpful, needs to be applied appropriately to protect our free media and national interest?
We on the Labour Benches recognise the importance of a long-term plan to grow the UK economy, particularly after such a long period of sluggish growth. That is why we have made securing the highest sustained growth in the G7 the central mission of a future Labour Government. However, it seems that this has only recently come to the fore for the Government. Why have the three regulators been added on now, rather than at the time the growth duty was introduced? There may be very good reasons. It would be helpful to understand better. Is it because the Government wanted to do further preparatory work with the regulators before introducing the growth duty? Were those regulators considered earlier on, when the others were first introduced?
In summary, we support this instrument, but urge the Government to meticulously monitor its impact and effectiveness in delivering long-term growth, and to ensure that the safeguards are in place to make sure that the regulators fulfil their primary objectives, although those are not framed in the same way. Is there a differentiation between primary and secondary objectives, as was the case for the example I mentioned earlier, or are they parallel objectives? Are there issues about competing demands on the regulators?
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but since I led for the Opposition in the debates on the Communications Act 2003, which established Ofcom, I want to draw on that experience to raise a couple of questions for the Minister. We spoke about some of the issues we are debating this morning at some length when Ofcom was set up. The Minister will be aware that Ofcom has a principal duty, which is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition. I share some of the wishes, if not concerns, of the Opposition spokesman to explore a little further what happens if that primary duty of promoting competition comes into conflict with the objective of promoting growth. I can think of a few examples where that is possible.
Ofcom has a duty to examine wholesale prices in the telecoms markets, where the Minister will be aware that the biggest player argues very strongly that if it is to have the investment to roll out the broadband network, it needs to be able to raise prices to fund it, which potentially comes into conflict with the competition priority. Equally, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow indicated, competition has been Ofcom’s driving objective in the mobile telephony market, but potentially that could come into conflict. Some may argue that allowing a small reduction in competition will promote growth.
I do not share the hon. Lady’s concern about national security, because I think that that is covered separately, by the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is a separate set of procedures that examines potential mergers and acquisitions to establish whether there is any risk to national security, and I hope that the draft order will not impinge on that. However, I see the possibility, at least in theory, that competition and growth might be conflicting objectives; given that competition is described as the Ofcom’s principal objective, I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit more about how Ofcom will deal with cases in which there is a potential conflict.
Peter Grant
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will ask the Committee to divide on the motion, because I do not see that it will solve the apparent problem, and I think it could create much worse problems for economic growth and, in particular, hard-pressed consumers.
The Minister gave an example of the kind of problem that we are trying to address: the fact that decisions sometimes take too long. I struggle to see how putting extra barriers and hurdles in a regulator’s way will make its decisions quicker. We all know the response of big business to a regulator that wants to make any significant changes to regulations. Big business does not complain that regulations have been brought in too slowly; it always complains that regulations have been brought in too quickly.
The failures in the regulation of the energy market over the last few years—the complete failure to protect hard-pressed consumers from massive money-grabbing, profit-making energy companies—occurred not because the regulator does not have any duty, or sufficient duty, regarding economic growth, but because the regulator is either unable or unwilling to carry out its primary purpose, which is to protect consumers. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned, the failure of the water companies to literally clean up their act occurred not because the regulator has too much freedom to regulate, but because it does not have sufficient powers or is not exercising those powers sufficiently. Putting extra barriers in its way, and creating extra excuses for billion-pound businesses to take legal action to slow down the regulatory process, will not speed up the cleaning up of Britain’s beaches and watercourses.
If we want companies such as Thames Water to contribute to the United Kingdom’s economic growth, why do we allow the Chinese Communist party to skim off almost 10% of the profits as dividends in years when the company makes a profit and in years when it makes a loss? Why have we allowed a situation in which, when the water and electricity companies appear to have a good year and make profits, those profits belong to somebody else, but as soon as the companies are in financial difficulty and need investment, that is suddenly the responsibility of taxpayers and customers? How does it contribute to economic growth that energy companies are allowed to bleed tens of millions of household budgets dry by hiking up prices, not because doing so was necessary but because they could get away with it?
The Government stepped in with a very expensive package of support, but that was not enough and has left future generations with a massive mortgage bill to pay. We will pay the debt from that intervention for years to come. The Chinese Government, who own a chunk of the UK’s water industry, and the French Government, who own a chunk of the electricity supply industry, are collecting dividends while UK taxpayers are subsidising customers who cannot afford their bills. How does that support economic growth? Why not require the energy regulator not to allow domestic bills to get higher than most consumers can afford, so that Government handouts are not needed to make up the difference? Bills increased not because doing so was necessary to keep energy companies sustainable, but because it was desirable for owners to keep energy companies profitable.
We should not forget that regulators were introduced, in some cases reluctantly, when these major public services were privatised, because even the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major were forced to accept that unregulated market economics would not work in a situation where there is effectively a natural monopoly on a basic requirement of life. There are few things in life more necessary than energy to keep warm and water to keep hydrated and clean, and turning them over to an unregulated market was not going to work. The regulators were given the powers to protect consumers from exploitation and abuse of market power, and that is where they should be focusing. Anything that puts barriers in the way of regulation on that is very likely to damage the interests of consumers.
In the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the draft order, I notice that almost the first comment is that a lot of those services now need massive investment— I wonder why. What is it about a massive profit-grabbing, internationally owned company that means that it failed to invest profits when times were good and is now looking for taxpayer handouts to invest when there is a need to update infrastructure? Why was it not forced to update that infrastructure as time went on? Why has it been allowed to get to the stage where the water supply system is barely fit for purpose?
Why do all those other countries have sovereign wealth funds that are able to buy up our water and energy supplies? Why does Britain not have a sovereign wealth fund? Britain has a sovereign wealth black hole, which at the end of 2023 was deepening to the tune of £10 billion a month. What are all those other countries doing right that Britain has been doing wrong for the last 50 years, which means that they have money to invest in other people’s essential services while the UK has an ever-expanding sovereign debt?
Why have we created a system where many of our life essential services now rely on investment from overseas pension funds, at the same time as the UK Government are trying to make it harder for British pension funds to invest in similar utilities overseas? What are Governments of other countries going to do if they feel that their interests are affected by UK pension funds not investing overseas? I will tell you, Mr Paisley: they are going to start making it harder for their pension funds to invest in our utilities. That is what is going to happen next.
I understand that the Conservative party, and to a large extent the Labour party, have a very different philosophy from mine. I think that the answer to a failing water supply system and energy market is to put them in the hands of the people who understand them best, which means bringing them back into public ownership. If the water companies claim that they are bust and have no money, what better time to take them off the hands of the Chinese and other foreign Governments? If they claim that the companies are not making money and are worth nothing, why do we not just offer them nothing to take them back into public ownership?
There has also been discussion about the communications regulator, where the issues are different. A lot of the challenges there tend to be technological, and how regulation keeps up with technology. By the time we have made regulations that come into force the day after tomorrow, technology will have changed. The Government must be well aware of the dangers of allowing particularly broadcast media to become too unregulated, as we are seeing in countries that are not too different from ours in many ways.
Ultimately, unregulated or inadequately regulated broadcast media is taking away people’s right to a fair trial if they are accused of a criminal offence. It is also taking away people’s right to a fair and free election, because there is insufficient regulation of the misinformation that can be put out on media channels in countries that are not politically, socially or historically far away from the United Kingdom.
I will press the Committee to a Division today, but I will not be surprised if only one person votes against the draft order. I am not convinced that the legislation will address the desperate problems that are facing our water supply, our energy supply and the different needs of the communications market. The draft order may make things worse, and it is unlikely to make things better, so I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister raised a number of important points about environmental protections. The new duty does not override the requirements of water companies or the regulator to ensure that environmental protections are put in place.
I would gently point out that there are two reasons why we are seeing such difficulties with our water suppliers now compared with the progressive change we have seen over recent years. First, we increased the monitoring of those dangerous parts of our system from 7% to 100% in 2010 so that we can see what is actually happening on the ground. We are also experiencing much higher rainfall, which is adding problems. To tackle this, the water companies have committed £96 billion for the period of 2025 to 2030. That is a 63% uplift on previous levels. Even before that, they were investing £6 billion annually, which is double the amount invested in capital infrastructure prior to privatisation. Work is being undertaken, but we accept that more needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised concerns about takeovers. Clearly we have a number of different vehicles we can use to mitigate those concerns, whatever sector they may relate to. We have the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and, for issues on public interest grounds, the Enterprise Act 2002. She also spoke about sluggish growth. I suggest that she checks the figures on GDP growth since 2010 or 2016 or pre-pandemic levels. We are third in the G7 and are growing faster than anywhere else except—[Interruption.] Well these are the facts. The hon. Lady can choose her own opinion, but she cannot choose her own facts. The only countries that have grown faster than us since then are the US and Canada. That is an absolute fact, so she should check the figures before saying that there has been sluggish growth.
On the question of “Why now?”, when we included the 50 regulators in 2017, we thought that the growth duty to be applied to Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom required further consideration, because they are economic regulators responsible for markets where operators are deemed to have monopoly or near-monopoly market power. More recently, we decided to include them within the various requirements of the growth duty.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon asked about conflict. To reiterate, there is no hierarchy here. The requirements for the environment remain and are not replaced by this measure. In terms of prices, the regulator has an affordability duty as one of the requirements, so that should not override the price-setting role that is naturally played by a regulator in what is pretty much a monopoly sector.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes talked about the requirements and why we are introducing this measure. I point him to some very important stakeholders, including the Federation of Small Businesses, that have welcomed this new duty. He asks about a sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the Government’s plans—we have already announced a plan to introduce one. I would say to him that this is about growth, and point to the facts about growth in the UK, particularly in Scotland. Over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021, England’s GDP growth was 14.9%. The UK’s as a whole was 12.9% and Scotland’s was 7.2%. Growth is important. We cannot deliver the revenue that allows us to set up something like a sovereign wealth fund without economic growth. That is what this is about, so he should welcome it.
Peter Grant
The Minister’s statistics are very interesting. Can he give us the equivalent figure for England without the City of London?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman can easily find the figures through the House of Commons Library, as I did. Is he envious of the City of London? We should be proud of this great city. Scotland has great cities too. I am a big fan of Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities. What I am saying is that growth is important. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is not. I would ask him to think again about that perspective.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. To conclude, by extending the growth duty to Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat, we will ensure that the regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth. An economy that promotes growth is an economy that is better able to attract businesses to our shores, innovate, serve households and deliver prosperity across our nations.
Rushanara Ali
I asked the Minister about the primary and secondary objectives, and whether he sees any parallels in how these changes are thought of—I know this is about having due
“regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”.
Does he think there is a parallel with the way that the competitive duty has been applied?
There is a potential tension to be managed in how regulators think about the importance of sector regulation and the Government imperative to promote growth. When regulatory officials think about our priorities, they might err on one side or the other, and that tension could be a problem. Does he feel that more work is needed to emphasise how the measures are applied, so that consumers do not suffer while we try to promote growth?
We need to do these things in tandem, so that we do not end up with a false economy, where damage is done to the economy through protections and standards that then cost the taxpayer a significant amount. That would leave us in the worst of all worlds, and is surely something that all different parties want to avoid.
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not disagree with anything the hon. Lady says. This is a parallel objective, not one that should replace the current objectives. It is a consideration for regulators. It is about not just obviating the risk, but looking at other factors. Investment is hugely important for our consumers and our citizens. This draft order is not about one thing or the other—for example, it will not replace the environmental duties of Ofwat. Indeed, the Environment Agency, which has had this duty since 2017, has issued about £150 million in fines to 60 different companies, so this is not about backing off on environmental protections. The hon. Lady raises an important point, however, and we have committed to reviewing how these measures will affect the general regulatory regime to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, although we do not feel that there will be, as long as the right balance is struck.
Of course, regulation must be used only where absolutely necessary, and must be implemented in a way that provides the right foundations for our economy to thrive. The purpose of the duty is to ensure that the specified regulators give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their activities and decisions on economic growth, alongside their consideration of other statutory duties. It does not create a hierarchy over existing protections.
With that, I believe I have addressed all the questions posed by right hon. and hon. Members, and look forward to the Committee’s support and commendation of the order.
Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024
(7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024.
As always, it is a very great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The order before us today amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 and adds “zombie-style knives” and “zombie-style machetes” to the list of prohibited offensive weapons. I will briefly set out the context. The Government have already taken robust action to address the menace of knife crime. Zombie knives were banned in England and Wales in 2016, followed by cyclone knives in 2019. Our legislation is stronger thanks to the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Online Safety Act 2023, with further new measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through Parliament. We have taken lots of measures in the non-legislative space too, not least the bolstering of our police forces with the recruitment of 20,000 officers. The numbers in London have not quite matched that target, but I hope the new Mayor, Susan Hall, will achieve it.
Nevertheless, as the public would expect, we keep our approach under review and will not hesitate when there is a clear and compelling case for further action. That brings me to the details of the order before us today. This legislation responds to concerns expressed by the police about the availability of certain types of machetes and large outdoor knives that do not seem to have a practical use and instead appear to be designed to look menacing. While zombie-style knives and machetes are fortunately used in a relatively low number of crimes, the police tell us that they are favoured by those who want to get hold of weapons for violent crime and to glamorise violence. Their appearance also creates fear in communities affected by knife crime. These weapons, which are advertised as collection items or as tools, can be purchased for as little as £10.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
In 2023, I joined the campaign run by the Express & Star to ensure that these types of knives were banned. Surely, just these weapons being on sale, regardless of their described purpose, speaks volumes to the fact that we should not allow them to be available to anybody?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend makes it absolutely clear why his campaign is right and has been taken up by the Government. He has made the case so forcefully not just on behalf of his own constituents, but on behalf of the whole country. I am delighted to be here speaking on behalf of the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who would be championing this, but sadly has been otherwise detained.
Unlike more conventional knives and machetes, these weapons 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. 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. A number of descriptions of weapons have been specified under section 141 and are 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 being a bladed article with a plain cutting edge, a sharp pointed end and a blade of over eight inches in length. The length was chosen in order to exclude knives designed for legitimate purposes such as many kitchen and outdoors knives. In order to be within the scope of the ban, the article should also have one or more of the features specified in new paragraph 1A, namely: a serrated cutting edge, more than one hole in the blade, spikes, or more than two sharp points in the blade.
Although it is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that the description of
“zombie-style knife or zombie-style machete”
does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture, farming, gardening or outdoor activities, nor indeed does it include my infantry sword.
We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is of historical importance; made by hand; possessed, sold or imported for religious purposes; or was given as a gift by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event. Antiques are already exempt from section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We are also providing a defence for blunt items to protect the legitimate fantasy knives market, and we have 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 the instrument provide for a surrender and compensation scheme through which owners of weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them. Secondly, regarding territorial scope, the statutory instrument will apply only 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 the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
If these dangerous knives remain available, there is a risk that they will be used in violent crime or to intimidate or cause fear. That is not a risk this Government are prepared to tolerate, nor is it one that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North would accept. As we have shown again and again, we will always act to protect our communities and keep the public safe. That is why we are introducing this order, which I commend to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees.
Knife crime is a scourge on our communities. In 2022, we saw the highest number of people killed with a knife for over 70 years, and the biggest increase was among young boys aged 16 to 17. Compared with 2015, total knife crime was up 70%, and that included record levels of knife-enabled rape and threats to kill. Last year, 75% of teenage homicides involved a knife or sharp instrument.
As a result, we are now in a situation where it is thought that more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. In 2021-22, a record number of children were victims of crime. Those numbers can blur into one, but behind every one is a family, broken hearts and an empty place at the table at Christmas. Many people do not recover from the trauma of that. It is therefore right that we want to act in this space.
Seemingly frequently, we see horrific attacks and threats by people using such weapons as zombie-style knives and machetes in the media. These weapons trade on their supposed aesthetic appeal and the harm they can inflict. It is chilling to see how these weapons are advertised and, frankly, how easy they are to purchase. Any member of this Committee could have bought one, probably a couple, during the length of the Minister’s speech; that is how available and well advertised they are. The intent to cause serious harm is abundantly clear there.
Campaigners have pushed hard to get the Government to act on this, and I pay tribute to those incredibly brave families who have turned their experience of dreadful personal loss into heroic campaigning. This is their day. It ought to be recognised that this is a ban that has been announced 16 times by the Government in some form or other. It should have been introduced sooner, but it is welcome and we certainly will support it in this Committee. We have long called for such a ban, and we now want to see it as swiftly as possible.
The Minister may be able to help me with a technical point. Like colleagues, perhaps, I always find compensation for the surrender of such weapons to be a jarring concept. However, as they were legal products at the point of purchase, it is probably fair, as well as being in line with the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Article 5 of the draft order sets the compensation at £10, but the surrender and compensation scheme claim form set out in the schedule states that an individual must be owed
“£30 or over to be eligible for compensation.”
Am I right in my understanding that a person would therefore need to return three items in order to be eligible for compensation? Does the Minister have any concerns that that may impair surrender rates? I wonder what modelling has been done.
I want to put on the record my frustration that this measure appears in secondary rather than primary legislation. The Government consulted on knife crime last year and then set out a welcome series of changes that they intended to implement in response to it. The draft order makes one such change, but there are others; those that require legislation have tended to be contained in the Criminal Justice Bill. A Bill is amendable: hon. Members and Members of the other place have a chance to table amendments to it and debate them at length in a Committee Room on this corridor. Today, however, we have been deprived of that chance and have been given a yes or no question. The answer must be yes, but we still feel that there are gaps, particularly in relation to ninja swords.
Ninja swords are very much in the same spirit as a zombie knife: they are sold and marketed to young people for their aesthetic appeal and their threat. We know that they are being used to cause serious harm; the dreadful case of the murder of Ronan Kanda with a ninja sword in Wolverhampton springs to mind. I always apply the Ronan Kanda test: would the action that the Government are taking have taken that weapon off the street? It would not have, and it still would not. That result is a shortfall. Can the Minister say why ninja swords have not been included in the ban and why the strategy is being implemented in a two-tier way via primary and secondary legislation? We might be missing an opportunity here.
Can the Minister tell us where the Criminal Justice Bill is? It contains hugely significant provisions relating to knife crime and organised crime, and it is the pledged vehicle for the stand-alone offence of violence against retail workers. However, we read online, seemingly every weekend, that perhaps it will not be coming back. Can the Minister confirm that it will?
We need a broader approach to tackling knife crime. Bans like this one are a really good start, but when the Minister talks about the policing approach, he knows as well as I do that there are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police deterring and detecting on our streets than in 2015. That means that there are weaknesses in our attempts to tackle knife crime. Similarly, education and youth services have been denuded in the past 14 years, which has weakened our approach.
The draft order is welcome, but there is much more to do. I hope that the Minister will address the issues that I have raised and that we can go a little further in the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, if not today.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his speech and for the tone with which he has approached the debate. He has been a good friend for many years and has championed many aspects of this work. It has been very much a cross-party effort, and I am grateful for his approach.
I am also grateful that the hon. Gentleman highlighted the pain that, sadly, families face in so many areas. I am sure he welcomes, as I do, the fall in violent crime in the United Kingdom over the past year: it is down 14%, which is a huge achievement not just for the Home Office, but for police forces across our country. That fall in England and Wales is a tremendous achievement that we should welcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked a fair question about ninja swords. While concerns have been raised, and while those types of swords have been used in crime, we have looked carefully at whether to extend the ban to a wider range of swords. Ninja swords that have the features set out in legislation will of course be banned, but those that do not have such features will not be. We have focused our action to date on the types of weapon that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has raised as being of particular concern, namely zombie-style weapons. However, we will keep the legislation under review and will be looking at what more we can do in the area if the police tell us that they have evidence that such swords are increasingly being used in crime.
We need to strike the right balance. Large sections of the public own modern swords as collectable items, and many of my former comrades own their regimental swords and keep them at home. They are not bladed weapons in the usual sense, but blunt ceremonial items. They are prized by members of the family, and many of them have been in the family for generations. We need to ensure that we craft the law in the right way to prevent harm and remove the danger that too many families have sadly faced, but that at the same time we respect people’s right to keep ceremonial or public items that are not of concern to the police. That is an important balance to strike, and we are listening very carefully to the police.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the compensation is £10 per item. A person claiming that the value of their item is higher will have to provide evidence, and the Home Office will assess their claim. That is why there may be a slight discrepancy. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to go through the details.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024
(7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 4 March, will amend the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 in respect of Great Britain to ensure that our legislative regime for veterinary medicines is fit for purpose to protect animal health, the environment and public health, including the people handling the medicines or the treated animal and those consuming produce from treated animals.
It is estimated that more than half of our households have companion animals. Many of those households will rely at some point on veterinary medicines to keep their pets healthy and well. Farmers also rely on veterinary medicines, including vaccines, to prevent disease and protect the health and welfare of, for example, more than 9 million cattle and 21 million sheep. That, in turn, helps to protect our food chain.
Veterinary medicines are necessarily highly regulated goods. The 2013 regulations set out controls on their marketing and manufacture, as well as their supply, prescription and use. Those regulations, which have not had a major update since 2013, now require amendment to reflect advances and developments in the industry. The draft instrument will make the biggest change to them in a decade. We received strong support from our stakeholders across the supply chain in response to our public consultation in 2023 on the proposed changes to the 2013 regulations.
Given the length and the technical nature of the draft regulations, I will focus on the key changes in them. They will ensure that safe and effective veterinary medicines of high quality continue to be available to treat our animals. They will also encourage the appropriate and responsible use of veterinary medicines, which is especially important for medicines to which bacteria and parasites can develop resistance, making them harder to treat.
The draft regulations will modernise the regulatory requirements for veterinary medicines and ensure that they are fit for purpose by reflecting technological advancements and developments, for example by allowing electronic package leaflets or QR codes on packaging and by adopting a flexible approach to novel therapies. The latter will make it possible to deal with their novel nature, in respect of the data required for the technical dossier supporting an application to market such a medicine.
With these amendments, we can ensure that the most innovative veterinary medicines can be brought to our market without unnecessary regulatory barriers and without compromising our assurance of their quality, safety or effectiveness. We will maintain the UK as an attractive market for companies by removing the renewal requirements for marketing authorisations, increasing certain data protection periods and harmonising across the UK the requirements for post-authorisation monitoring of adverse events related to the medicines, such as side effects.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
In respect of the supply of veterinary medicines, paragraph 7.8(d) of the explanatory memorandum notes the requirement for
“online retailers to register with the regulator.”
Will a registration fee be payable?
Sir Mark Spencer
My right hon. Friend asks an interesting question. There is no fee to register, but it is important that those who are selling these medicines into the UK market take the trouble to register so that we can guarantee the safety of our pets, our farm animals and our consumers.
When we were part of the EU, officials in my Department contributed to the development of new EU laws on veterinary medicines, with the main aim being to reduce the regulatory burden. It has always been the expectation that the requirements will also apply in the UK. We are making changes to the regulations in respect of Great Britain, which will, for example, make it easier for businesses to apply for licences for medicines on a UK-wide basis, reducing the regulatory burden for pharmaceutical companies. These companies, which are often global companies, are set up largely to serve the European market as a whole. Changes will also enable common labelling and packaging to be used across the UK. Altogether, this will encourage companies to continue marketing much-needed veterinary medicines here in the United Kingdom.
We are maximising our ability to take appropriate action in the case that a safety concern arises about a product or an active substance—the ingredient that gives a medicine its therapeutic activity. We are doing so by introducing simple registration schemes for manufacturers, importers and distributors of active substances, for online retailers of veterinary medicines, and for manufacturers of exempted medicines for small pet animals. That will improve our regulatory oversight in those areas, without creating an unnecessary burden.
This draft regulations will require pharmaceutical companies and wholesale dealers to report information on supply shortages, which will help us to secure the supply chain and maximise our ability to take action when there is a shortage and maintain the availability of treatment options for our animals.
We are progressing the Government’s plan to tackle antimicrobial resistance through a further reduction in the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals. The draft regulations make it clear that antibiotics must not be used routinely or to compensate for poor farming practice, while still allowing for preventive use of antibiotics in critical cases in which animal welfare is at risk.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I admire the ambition in the Minister’s statement, but does he share my view that antifungal resistance is not taken seriously enough in this country and that more could be done on prevention, especially in relation to agents that help to get rid of fungal infections, which are dangerous to animal and human health? It is just as serious an issue as antibiotic resistance.
Sir Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that point. We pay a lot of attention to antimicrobial resistance, but she is right to say that we do not always take antifungal resistance as seriously. We need to be aware that nature has the ability to mutate and change, and we need to meet the challenges head on. That is why the regulatory regime is so important: to prevent the overuse of some of these treatments, which could lead to resistance forming.
Making changes to farm infrastructure and practices takes time. The changes that we are making will allow for that, while putting trust in our farmers, who have voluntarily reduced their antibiotic use by 59% since 2014.
Finally, the draft regulations will update the fees for the regulatory services provided under the 2013 regulations, in line with the cost recovery principles in the “Managing Public Money” guidelines. They will allow us to continue the effective regulation of the veterinary medicines sector, protecting animal health, human health and the environment. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I thank the Minister for his customarily thorough introduction to this substantial and weighty 209-paragraph instrument on an important subject.
The Opposition support the primary objectives and the key components of this legislation, and we will not be opposing it. Many stakeholders have pointed out that it is long overdue and much needed, as the 2013 regulations are no longer fit for purpose. I thank the National Office of Animal Health, the National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association in particular for the information and observations that they have provided. We have also had the benefit of a very well-informed discussion of the draft regulations in the other place.
Fundamentally, we agree with measures that will render the Veterinary Medicines Regulations more effective and modern and enable the development and marketing of veterinary medicines. We hope that these measures will facilitate greater confidence and investment in the UK’s animal health industry, which is a high-value, high-growth and high-skill sector that contributes significantly to the UK.
It is hard not to note the force of the comments from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as reported by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which makes it very clear just how important it is that our rules be closely aligned with those of our European neighbours:
“The changes introduced by this SI mirror the requirements in EU law…This further reduces the current levels of UK-EU divergence in relation to labelling”.
I heard similar points made strongly at a recent presentation at the NOAH conference here in Westminster, over the road.
We agree that we must redouble our efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance. It is important to recognise that UK livestock sectors have made considerable progress in reducing their reliance on antibiotics. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s UK veterinary antibiotic resistance and sales surveillance report, which was released in November 2022, shows that UK antibiotic sales for food-producing animals have reduced by 55% since 2014, representing the lowest sales to date. The efforts made also include an 83% reduction in the use of the highest-priority antibiotics for human medicine.
But we need to push harder and go further. That is why we support one of the key objectives of this legislation, which is to put an end to the routine or predictable prophylactic use of antibiotics and restrict treatments to exceptional use only. I can understand why the Veterinary Medicines Directorate stopped short of a blanket ban, but will the Minister clarify what is defined as “exceptional use”? Will he provide more explanation as to how the scope of the exemptions will be contained so that the apparent spirit of that provision is respected? Some stakeholders would certainly appreciate reassurance on that important point.
We agree with the rationale underpinning the requirement for the holder of a marketing authorisation who identifies a shortage of any veterinary medicinal product to notify the Secretary of State. We need to improve our intelligence and foresight of shortages in order to protect animal health and welfare more effectively. I am told that there were shortages of Heptavac this year. Farmers have had historical issues with Enzovax, and pain relief products continue to be in short supply, creating significant issues for timeliness of treatment. It would make a difference to farmers if they could rely on a certain supply of the medications that have significant impact on their livestock.
I appreciate the British Veterinary Association’s point that the reporting system must be implemented in a way that avoids panic buying and stockpiling. It will also depend for its efficacy on timely and reliable intelligence gathering and data reporting. Will the Minister provide more details of the progress on the development of that system? Can he say how he will ensure that it is underpinned by timely and robust information and that it mitigates unintended consequences such as the potential for stockpiling?
One of the main strengths of this legislation is that it should help to ensure that the UK has access to a more reliable and comprehensive supply of medications by reducing divergence from the EU. If we want the UK market for veterinary medicines to continue to offer a broad range of products to vets and animal owners, and to be an attractive place to bring new licensed medicines and innovations, UK regulations should not act as a barrier to trade.
I note the divergence on the issue of data collection: the EU has a mandatory system for the recording of antibiotic use, whereas this legislation maintains a voluntary approach in the UK. I further note that it is intended that the voluntary approach be continued, but that the VMD should have the power to introduce a mandatory approach if it is deemed necessary, as is provided for in the legislation.
The main area of remaining divergence, which is still a significant concern, relates to Northern Ireland. Many people are worried that farmers in Northern Ireland might not be able to access a wide range of important medicines after the December 2025 deadline, when the grace period for the supply of veterinary medicines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland ends. We are talking about approximately 30% to 50% of products ceasing to be available—a significant proportion, which could compromise animal health and welfare and could have an impact on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland’s agriculture. Will the Minister please explain whether and how his Government plan to find a permanent solution to ensure that veterinary medicines remain accessible to farmers in Northern Ireland? Will he update us on any negotiations with the EU to achieve that aim? The Opposition support the draft regulations but, as ever, there are questions to be answered.
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support and co-operation. He mentioned divergence, but it is important to recognise that we do not want divergence for divergence’s sake. We want to align with the EU to make things as simple as possible for our food producers, but to maintain our ability to do things differently if we so choose.
Antibiotic use is an important part of the strategy, which I know interests a lot of hon. Members across the House. We have considered it very closely, and it is something that we are very much looking to do.
The shadow Minister asked why we do not fully ban the preventive use of antibiotics in healthy animals. We have included provision for vets to prescribe antibiotics to prevent disease in animals in exceptional circumstances, because a blanket ban might result in a risk to animal welfare and a risk of increased spread of disease.
Our position for many years has been that we do not support antibiotic use to compensate for poor animal husbandry or hygiene. That is now laid out in legislation. The way we would describe that exceptional circumstance, I suppose, is that the use of veterinary antibiotics to prevent disease would have to be prescribed by a veterinary professional. That would be permitted only where there would be a risk of infection or severe consequences if antibiotics were not applied.
The shadow Minister asked about supply in Northern Ireland. We are very conscious of that issue. The changes being made are in line with international standards and, to a large extent, with European regulations. This will encourage applications for new and innovative medicines for the whole UK, including Northern Ireland; such applications could include those for new vaccines to reduce the reliance on antibiotics. They would apply in Northern Ireland, as well as the rest of the UK.
The shadow Minister talked about shortages, which we recognise could be a challenge. The review of shortages will be on a case-by-case basis. We will work with veterinary officers, as well as suppliers and wholesalers, to ensure that there is reliable and available information as soon as an issue is known and identified. In instances of temporary supply issues, the VMD will permit the import of alternatives only until the supply issue is resolved or another suitable product is authorised.
I hope that I have answered the shadow Minister’s questions. I am grateful for the Committee’s support this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income
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
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered minimum income thresholds for partner and spousal visas.
I am pleased to speak with you in the Chair, Sir George. I want to express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for providing me with this opportunity, as well as to Members across the House who supported the application. I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue because insufficient attention has been given to the threshold changes in the wider debate on migration. Constituents whose lives have been turned upside down by December’s announcement have written to me; I know people have written to many colleagues, too. They are victims of the chaos in Government migration policy, which does not seem to extend beyond the mantra of stopping the boats.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
indicated dissent.
Paul Blomfield
I see the Minister shaking his head, so I will put my points to him. The Government have talked about migration as a problem, but have failed to come up with a solution that addresses the real challenges. When faced with the rising net migration figures in November, the Government seemed to hit out in all directions, looking to headlines but without regard to the consequences; removing the rights of care workers to bring dependants without regard for the impact on those needing care; increasing the salary threshold for the skilled worker visa without regard to the needs of critical sectors; reviewing the graduate visa without regard to the impact on universities whose funding model has been designed by the Government to be dependent on international students; and, in relation to this debate, introducing new thresholds for family visas without regard to the consequences for families.
Let me be absolutely clear: nobody wants uncontrolled migration. What people want is a comprehensive plan that is fair and works in the interests of our country. The announcement of family visas fails that benchmark. It had all the feel of a policy developed on the back of a fag packet, as we used to say. First, the Government announced that they were more than doubling the threshold to £38,700 by spring 2024. Within days they changed course and said there would be a phased approach starting at £29,000 in spring ’24, rising to £34,500 at an unspecified date later in ’24, and then £38,700. Only later, in response to a petition, did they confirm that the £38,700 would be delayed until early 2025.
Originally a spokesperson said the threshold would apply to visa extensions, but, thankfully, later contradicted that and confirmed that that would not be the case. What is left from the original announcement remains a big change so, as required, the Home Office carried out an impact assessment. However, it has refused to publish it, which was highlighted by the recent House of Lords Scrutiny Committee report, presumably, as with previous Home Office impact assessments, because the results were not favourable to its arguments.
I will share the impact that my constituents have told me the policy would have on their marriages, family life and future. The first constituent to write to me was a charity worker and, as such, was willing to accept a low income, but his willingness to make that salary sacrifice would prevent him having the opportunity to settle here with his fiancée from Argentina. Another told me that he had met his Chinese girlfriend while studying at university. They had planned to start their graduate life together in the United Kingdom, but will now not be able to do so. A midwife told me that she cannot bring her husband over so they could start their family here.
One man wrote to me to say that he had recently got engaged to his partner in Qatar and planned to have a civil partnership here in the UK, but those plans were off. Others told me that they were considering dropping out of degrees to fund full-time employment to meet income requirements, and one told me of the devastating choice between leaving the UK or leaving the person they love.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. The most common origin countries for which family-related visas were granted last year were Pakistan and India, yet workers of Pakistani heritage have the lowest median hourly pay of any ethnic group, meaning they are less likely to meet the minimum income threshold. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the policy only entrenches the UK’s hostile immigration environment, as it is likely to be overwhelmingly discriminatory against ethnic minorities, particularly British Asians?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I will come on to it. Across communities, ordinary people doing valuable jobs are having to rethink their lives. Let us reflect for a moment on the sorts of jobs that would not reach the minimum income.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his important speech. I, too, have had a number of constituents get in touch. People are upset and they cannot quite believe this is happening. One constituent wrote of how the legislation will affect a close friend and described the changes as having “discriminatory, classist overtones”. They went on to say:
“No other respectable free country financially penalises its citizens for marrying immigrants.”
It is moving when we think of the matter in those terms, is it not? As my hon. Friend says, this is just people trying to go about their lives. They meet someone, they fall in love and then they have to make a dreadful decision.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. This is discriminatory not simply in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) mentioned, but in terms of wealth.
Let us reflect on the sorts of jobs that would not reach the minimum income. A newly qualified nurse is below the starting threshold on a salary of £28,407; a newly qualified teacher is well below the higher threshold at £30,000; and a starting police officer on £36,775 is again below the threshold. Entry-level positions in business start-ups are also below the threshold at £37,500. The University of Sheffield told me that 557 of its researchers—people doing vital work in the life sciences and in research for our economy—are on a salary below the threshold.
According to the Migration Observatory, around 50% of UK employees earn less than the £29,000 threshold and 70% earn less than £38,700. That means that 50% to 70% are unable to marry a non-British citizen of their choice and live together in the UK. There are significant regional variations too, with average earnings in London around 30% higher than in the north-east, for example, and in my area of South Yorkshire average earnings are around £27,000. People in Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-east, the north-west, the east midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected.
The new rules will discriminate in other ways too. They will particularly affect women who, on average, earn less and are more likely to have caring responsibilities and therefore do not work full time. They discriminate against minorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. They have a disproportionate impact on the self-employed, on younger people and those at the early stage of their career. Why, therefore, are the Government doing it? They argue that it is to stop people being a burden on the state. I look forward to the Minister trying to advance that argument.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Member makes a compelling case. On the question of regional and local variations, in my community, we expect young people to go away for further and higher education due to the limited provision within the community. I encourage that, because I always say to young people, “Orkney and Shetland will still be here when you are ready to come back.” They go away, they meet people from other parts of the world, they fall in love and they want to bring them back. That enriches our communities in so many different ways, quite apart from the economic and social contribution. Does that aspect—the human aspect—for communities such as ours not really deserve be given better consideration by the Government?
Paul Blomfield
The right hon. Member is right; the failure to consider the human aspect of the decision runs right through the policy. As I say, the Government are arguing that it is to stop people being a burden on the state, yet those who come to the UK on a spousal visa do not have access to public funds. They are also required to contribute to NHS costs with the immigration health surcharge, which has been rising significantly. Indeed, many are younger and do not use the NHS very much at that point.
Margaret Greenwood
It is argued that immigrants are a burden on the state, but study after study shows absolutely the reverse: young, fit and healthy people come to work here. They are not a burden on the state and they contribute to society, so we really need to debunk the myth that the Tories are peddling.
Paul Blomfield
I was not suggesting they are a burden; I was simply reflecting the Government’s argument. My hon. Friend demonstrates, in addition to my argument, that those people are clearly not a burden.
It is not as if family migration is a big problem. Although the absolute number of family visas issued nearly doubled between 2020 and the end of September ’23—I am sure the Minister will make that point—their proportion in relation to entry visas has remained consistently low, at 5%. The policy will not have a significant impact on the UK’s net migration, but for the families affected, the effect is enormous. They will be separated and forced to live apart if they cannot meet the threshold. As my hon. Friend said, some who could make a valuable contribution to this country in all sorts of careers will be forced to leave the UK altogether—many have told me that that is their plan. It is fundamentally unfair that partners and families are being priced out of the right to live in the UK with a foreign partner—priced out of their right to a family life on the basis of how much they earn. It is a two-tier system based on wealth.
Our approach compares badly with those of other countries. All developed countries face the challenge of migration policy. Although the Government sometimes suggest that it is a unique challenge for us, it affects every country in Europe, the States and the whole of the developed world, but those countries do not all adopt the same approach. Over the past few weeks, the Government have cited Australia admiringly as a model for migration policy, but it has no earnings threshold for family visas. In many other countries, such as Germany, the right to reunite with spouses is almost automatic, with no income requirement. Some countries do require proof of sufficient resources, but for those that express that as a minimum income, including Belgium and Norway, the threshold is nowhere near the one proposed by the Government. Countries such as Spain and the Netherlands link it to social security levels. In the US, it is 125% of federal poverty guidelines, which means in real terms that it is pretty similar to the current threshold in the UK, before the Government’s proposed change.
It is no wonder that the Migrant Integration Policy Index, which compares countries across Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and others, ranks the UK as next to the bottom of 56 countries for its policies on family reunification and integration, so there is a strong case for the Government to think again. If we are to have a threshold, there are fairer approaches. Currently, the threshold is close to the national minimum wage—that is one benchmark. It could be set against the national living wage—just over £22,000 for somebody working 37.5 hours a week. That would be well below the proposed threshold, and it would take out the wealth barrier to family life that the Government are imposing. We could take account of spouses’ anticipated earnings on arrival, as we do after they are in the UK.
The point is that there are options. We need a root-and-branch review of the spousal migration rules that considers the unfairness at their heart and the disproportionate impact of the Government’s proposals on so many. In the meantime, the planned increased this year and in 2025 should be suspended, and the Government should listen to those whose lives are being affected.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that those who want to be called to speak should bob.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be called so early in this debate on what is effectively a Tory means test on marriage. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing it. I almost never disagree with anything he says in a debate, and today is no exception. I thank him for his work in ensuring that we have this opportunity.
It is about seven years since I led a debate on the same subject in this room, but the thresholds are now even more arbitrarily brutal and the number of people whose lives will be destroyed is even greater. With more people than ever falling in love with someone from another country, the Government are making it more difficult than ever for those couples to enjoy their family life here. Let us not forget that Brexit, too, means that more people are impacted because our EU friends can no longer benefit from free movement but must seek to satisfy what are already the most draconian family visa rules in the world before the Government implement these changes.
The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, “You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.” That is just not normal. No other countries are so cruelly anti-family, and it particularly sticks in the craw given that so many members of the Government have enjoyed international marriages here in the UK. It is one rule for the Government and one rule for everybody else—so much for the Conservative party claiming to be the party of the family. This is not a small c conservative policy or a pro-family policy at all. It is a desperate and reactionary policy, playing politics with the family lives of our children and future generations.
At least when we had this debate seven years ago, the Government could point to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee to justify the figure that they had alighted on as the appropriate threshold. They now seem to have picked some random numbers, ultimately matching it up with a tier 2 work visa threshold that some people need to satisfy. The utterly critical question for the Minister today is: why have the Government decided that that particular number is appropriate? To my mind, they might as well match it up with the Prime Minister’s salary. If the Minister cannot explain the logic behind it, not only is the policy utterly immoral, but it may be irrational and illegal.
Neither have the Government bothered to assess the impact that it has had on couples or their children—or, perhaps more accurately, they have assessed the impact; they are just not going to publish that. Back in 2015, the then Children’s Commissioner for England did the Government’s job for them with her report entitled “Skype families”, which showed tens of thousands of children having been negatively impacted by the rules. It states:
“They are living separated from a parent with reported stress, anxiety and difficulties for the children and their families…Children and families surveyed reported a number of emotional and behavioural problems for children who were living with parents who were separated inside and outside the UK. Many parents reported that their children had become clingy and dependent on one parent; children often suffered from separation anxiety and became socially withdrawn, and some described children having difficulty socialising and experiencing problems at school.
Parents described how children displayed eating and sleeping problems; slow or poor language development, and can display anger and violence toward peers and family.
Some children said that they feel guilty and blame themselves for the absence of a parent.”
What a horrific policy to impose on children. The tweaks made in recent years have not fixed that damage at all.
The Government have previously justified these moves and policies on the grounds of families having to show that they can support themselves and of a strange integration argument, but those arguments have always been fig leaves and they are particularly so now. Ensuring self-sufficiency has never really been what this is about, because, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central pointed out, the Government do not actually bother to properly consider whether the person coming to the UK will be able to earn towards the financial target. It does not matter that the spouse coming to the country is well qualified, has good prospects of finding work or has other forms of support available. That is all disregarded. As has been pointed out, the Home Office will automatically ensure that their visa is subject to a no recourse to public funds condition anyway.
This is even less about self-sufficiency now, because there is absolutely no link between the thresholds that the Government have picked and the notion of self-sufficiency. The numbers are totally irrational, unless the Minister is saying that nobody earning less per year than £29,000, or £39,000 from next year, is capable of supporting their spouse. That is an extraordinary proposition. It would also have lots of implications for the Government’s policies on public sector pay, the minimum wage, social security and lots more. Indeed, as the Children’s Commissioner report highlighted, these rules mean that people unable to bring their spouses in have needed to have greater reliance on social security than they otherwise would, as they struggled to juggle work and caring responsibilities without their life partner by their side.
To me, the integration argument makes even less sense. Why will someone earning £40,000 or their spouse integrate better than a person earning £30,000 or their spouse? Again, as per the Children’s Commissioner:
“There is no evidence to suggest that integration has been enhanced but there is evidence that it has been reduced.”
What this is really about is politics: shaving a couple of percentage points off net migration, sending a signal—a dog whistle, really—and doing untold damage to people’s lives.
Alongside these rules, couples are also hit by the extraordinary fees and up-front health charges, which provide yet another brutal barrier. My constituent, Stephen, previously served in the forces, but has since worked in oil and gas. For the moment, he does meet the rules and requirements, but his entire income is now spent on paying for the medicines required to keep his wife, who he met in 2011, alive. He meets the rules but he cannot pay these fees and charges up-front. At this rate, he may never get to bring his wife and her daughter to the UK. Can the Minister provide any hope to my constituent that an application would be accepted, even though these fees cannot be met up front? These are rotten rules from a rotten Government, and I very much hope that the next one does better.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am about to give the Government a bit of a hard time on behalf of some of my constituents, but I do want to praise the Minister. He is a very thoughtful and caring Minister who has been tackling one of the biggest briefs in Government, and I do not think anybody else would do as good a job, to be honest. There is a genuine paucity of ideas, particularly from the Opposition, in the rhetoric. There is also a genuine concern in all our mailboxes about the pressure of illegal and legal migration numbers on services and the country. The Government have tried to fix that, but it is right that all of us today bring out our individual stories of constituents, because it is in stories that we sometimes find the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy at the top, which is trying to solve a very real problem.
I want to talk about two women. The first is Rebecca Gray. Sir George, you will know that every day is a school day in this place. Rebecca has taught me never to underestimate the power of a feisty woman trying to protect and fight for her family, while also armed with TikTok. She has made a very compelling case across her social media, which has led to a number of other people getting in touch with her to tell their stories.
Rebecca contacted me in December 2023 after the announcements about the visa salary requirement increases. She has lived in Turkey with her Turkish husband for the last three years—she is my constituent and I know her family; one of her siblings is a local councillor—because they have been caring for her terminally sick mother-in-law, who has sadly passed away. She has also been running a UK online business, and the couple have worked hard to save £62,000 for the savings threshold. She has been in a relationship with her husband for more than 10 years—this is a love relationship. They have been looking forward to returning to the UK, not least because they were at the epicentre of the earthquakes in February 2023. Those changed their lives forever, with 250 local people they know—family members as well—losing their lives. They do not want to live in Turkey any more for safety reasons, as well as because of familial connections back in the Stroud and Gloucestershire area.
The new figure of £38,000 is basically unachievable for my constituent, and she questions whether it is achievable for many people working outside London. She has a trade in the UK as a beauty therapist with her online business, and she has considered coming home and leaving her husband behind to work for six months to apply for the visa. In her trade, however, she will not get to that earnings threshold very easily. The hair and beauty industry has very skilled people, and I defy anybody in Government to take them out of our constituencies. There would be a lot of angry women in particular, including me, with big eyebrows. The reality is that these are people we know and love, and that many of us rely on these jobs.
We have a second issue with Rebecca’s case. She is on a self-employed income, which is not treated the same as a pay-as-you-earn income. She says:
“My husband is not a dependant and has the right to work upon arrival. The £62,500 we currently have for the savings route held for 6 months proves I can support us during this period. The potential new figure of £88,700—who on earth would spend that amount of money in the period we have to provide proof for…why is the assumption my husband wouldn’t work, as the focus is on me as a sponsor”
rather than on them as a couple?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is making a very important point. Whether or not there is the case for a spousal visa—income connection—in principle is one matter, but does she not highlight the difficulty that we now have? This area of policy has become so complex, and there are so many exceptions and different rules applying to different people, that if we are going to have a scheme of this sort we need to pare it right back to the start and design it to meet people’s needs rather than some political purpose, which I fear is where we have got to here.
Siobhan Baillie
I respect that meaningful intervention, but I disagree that this is just about political point scoring. This is a genuine attempt to simplify the rules, which is genuinely important, particularly for families who are stressed, separated or face issues such as safety with regard to earthquakes. People need to understand their options. However, the Government should look very carefully at the treatment of the self-employed and that disparity.
Rebecca’s asks are threefold, Minister—before I come to the second lady I will mention. The first is to have the ability to combine self-employed income and savings to meet the financial threshold requirements, because those who are not self-employed can do that. That is unfair; she says it is discrimination. Secondly, if we cannot go back to the old threshold, she asks whether the new threshold of £29,000—about median earnings for this country—can be held in place for longer, with the Government having taken on board some of the evidence that we are citing today. The third is to potentially look at exemptions and special appeal routes so that families can put together their cases and make applications to the Home Office to be looked at very carefully, particularly when there are safety issues and real evidence of long-standing savings and income thresholds that will never be met in someone’s particular profession.
I met the second lady on the doorstep at the weekend— I canvass every weekend—and she could not believe her luck that she had her MP on her doorstep, because this issue has been concerning her for years. She is South African and is over on a spousal visa, and she wanted to raise the eye-watering cost of that visa with me. In total, it will cost £14,000; the citizenship costs have also just gone up. This hard-working family are taxpaying UK citizens. They have done everything right and dealt with the system’s complexity, but she says that it is penalising her family for trying to do the right thing. She said that this point is not about racism, but she sees other people being treated differently. She is doing all that she is asked, and there are people coming across on small boats and getting accommodation. She was very concerned about this issue, and the point about fairness is running through many of our constituents’ concerns.
My constituent asked whether a system can be put in place whereby, if someone has the outlay of costs to meet the visa requirements, those could be recouped in some sort of tax treatment later as they continue to work and pay taxes in the country. She wants to see her efforts and payments out recognised by the Government in terms of her overall contribution to the country. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on all of those points.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and on the very compelling case he made in opening it. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), and I agree with a great deal of what she said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central set out the changes that are proposed. When we started talking about all of this, the Prime Minister argued that anyone bringing dependants to the UK must be able to support them financially. We understand that point, but the changes that have been announced will take the minimum income requirement far beyond the income of most UK employees. It appears to be an arbitrary set of numbers, and it is a disproportionate increase with very unfair and harmful effects.
When the Home Secretary set out his plan, of which the increased minimum income threshold requirement was part, he said this was going to deliver
“the biggest ever reduction in net migration.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 41.]
He said that 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would not be able to do so. However, as we have been reminded, family visas accounted for only 5% of total entry visas between January and September last year. Family visas have not made up more than 10% of total entry visas for over a decade. The Government’s own analysis suggests that the increased minimum income requirement will cut migration by between 3% and 10% of the promised 300,000 reduction, and that is almost certainly an overestimate.
The truth is that increasing income thresholds on spousal visas will barely dent migration figures. It is extraordinary that the Government did not even consult the Migration Advisory Committee before announcing the change. It will not have much of an impact on migration—the Government’s own analysis confirms that—but it will cause great hardship for those affected. Thousands of people will have to live without their partners and thousands of children will have to live without a parent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out that the Migrant Integration Policy Index places us second from bottom out of 56 for ease of family reunion. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the other place pointed out in its 2023 report “All families matter” the wider harm of reducing cohesion across society. Parents forced into single parenthood must reduce involvement in the wider community, and children separated from their parents by arbitrary rules that they cannot understand trust society less as a result. This is a spiteful change that will undermine cohesion in our society in the long term. Conservative politicians very often recognise the damage caused by breaking up families, but here they choose to break them up quite deliberately. We will all suffer the downsides for society that Conservative Members will readily enumerate in other contexts, but they are forcing those break-ups through these changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out that the Migration Observatory at Oxford University has shown that 70% to 74% of employees in the UK would not meet the £38,700 requirement. Surely the Government are not suggesting that only about a quarter of UK employees can support their dependants financially, but that appears to be the implication of their claims. Various other standards have been suggested in the debate, but, as my hon. Friend suggested, surely a better standard would be to ensure that anybody bringing dependants into the UK would have an income above the level at which they are ineligible for universal credit. That is a possible yardstick. As we have heard, Spain and the Netherlands apply a standard along those lines, and it is certainly well below £38,700.
The increase in the minimum income requirement goes far beyond the level to deliver the Government’s stated aims for the threshold. It will reduce migration only minimally, but it will cause great hardship to thousands and damage the fabric of our society. It will be ineffective, unfair and harmful, and it should be scrapped.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this morning, Sir George. I congratulate and thank all those who have contributed to the debate so far, especially the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who secured it and made an excellent introductory speech. The introduction of the increased minimum income requirement—going from £29,000 a year last month to £38,700 a year by some point next year—is both cruel and foolish. Not that the Conservative party really needs me to advise it, but it is fundamentally unconservative, if we take conservatism to be about the family and pragmatic economics. I will say more on that in a moment or two.
I will start with a question for the Minister that I think gets to the heart of it all. The Home Office has said that the policy is all about ensuring that families that include a migrant are not a burden to the state. Can he define what constitutes a burden to the state, given that an individual on a spousal visa has no recourse to public funds? That is the first question I would like him to consider. Then, as others have pointed out, what on earth led him to make that decision on the basis of no meaningful evidence or research? His own Migration Advisory Committee advised against it. Only three years ago, it stated that it was
“concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route.”
Why did the Government not take note of that? When we think about the benefits to family and society, we could talk about the economic impact in an area such as mine, which desperately depends on a large proportion of migrants to make our economy, our social care and healthcare, and our hospitality and tourism industry work.
The families themselves are surely the most important aspect, and that is what I will focus on next. A number of people, including the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) who has just spoken, have mentioned the significant impact on families. We will see an increase in the length of separation before visas are obtained, if they are at all, for different parts of the family. Often, this will involve British children—not that it is any better if they are not born in the UK or are not British.
The impact on women will evidentially be far greater than the impact on men. As things stand, as of last month’s increase, 36% of employed women and 58% of men earn enough to meet the £29,000 threshold, but, from next year, only 21% of women and 39% of men will be able to meet the threshold. As suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), there will be regional disparities as well. I assume that £38,700 is around an average salary within London, maybe even below thst, but in the north-west of England it most definitely is not. If we are concerned about levelling up, the policy will do damage to businesses and families in Cumbria and other parts of the north of England.
The reality is that the new change will force British and settled mothers into solo parenting. It will force them into a position where they will not be able to work because of childcare requirements. There will be additional costs for the state, and it will cause heartache, pain, sadness and separation for families up and down our country. It will make it much harder, rather than easier, for mixed nationality families to integrate into society, so the social disbenefits are huge as well. British citizens and settled residents are very badly affected by these rules.
Again, if we are putting a positive spin on what Conservative party ethics are about, so often we hear about family values—I believe very much in the importance of the family—yet this policy takes an absolute torpedo to family life. It causes sadness, mental health problems, distress and lack of educational attainment. It forces people into solo parenting completely against the will of both those involved in the relationship. Frankly, it is wicked, deeply cruel and utterly counterproductive. Either it will fail—there has been a lot of evidence from Members who have spoken so far that it will fail to drive down net migration, which is bad from a competence point of view—or it will work, which will be even worse. The foolishness of it is enormous.
We know that the minimum income requirement does not directly affect people working in care, but the refusal to allow care workers to bring a spouse with them absolutely will have an impact on social care. To look at the impact in Cumbria, one in five social care jobs within our county is currently vacant. Those vacancies happen for a number of reasons, but fundamentally our workforce is far too small. That is partly caused by the Government’s failure to help us tackle the affordable housing crisis in our communities. We see second homes and holiday lets gobbling up the homes that local people—or people who might become local—could live in, so where is our workforce to contribute to every part of our economy?
We are also, of course, damaged by silly visa rules that make it impossible for us to recruit people from overseas to supplement our workforce. People will often say that, we should be making sure that we tackle the care crisis by paying people better. Abso-blooming-lutely, so why are the Government not doing that? The Liberal Democrats have a policy—which I am not saying is the answer to everything—saying that we should increase the minimum wage in social care by £2, to £13.44. That would at least mean that care providers would be paying their workers more than they would be paid if they worked in the supermarket, or in other roles, when the current situation leads to many people leaving social care. But there is no sign of that happening whatsoever, and what little those care providers can do to bring in workers from overseas is being damaged by this Government.
All this has a consequence, of course, and that is not just the misery from those people who cannot get care, or the hard work for those people who work in social care and have to work extra hours under enormous pressure, doing shorter and shorter visits because there are not enough colleagues to do the job. Twenty four per cent of the beds in the Morecambe Bay hospitals are occupied by people who are medically fit to leave but cannot get out with a care package because we do not have the carers. These policies make that situation even worse, and the people who are hurt by it are my constituents who cannot get care, and indeed my constituents who are not able to bring their families with them, which is just cruel and miserable.
The minimum income requirement affects those people working in hospitality and tourism. I tell the Minister that 63% of the hospitality and tourism businesses in the Lake district and wider Cumbria are working below capacity—unable to meet a demand that is there—because they cannot find the staff. In the Lake district, 80% of the working age population is already working in hospitality and tourism. There is no reservoir of unused labour that could be turned into workers in hospitality and tourism.
Therefore the Government’s policies—and this makes it even worse—mean that our economy is not able to punch at its weight. We could be contributing so much more to growth in our country. Some 20 million people visit the lakes every single year, and there are 60,000 jobs in hospitality and tourism in Cumbria, but we cannot punch at the weight we should be able to because the Government are tying the hands of hospitality and tourism businesses. It is economically stupid, and it is deeply damaging to individuals.
Let us go back to what we now know: 79% of women and 61% of men will not meet the minimum income requirement, so Cumbria can perhaps expect up to two thirds of its overseas staff to leave. What a miserable and stupid thing this is to do. As others have alluded to, the Government are choosing this policy because they believe that there is a very anti-immigrant view out there, and they are want to do things—last night’s votes, and all the rest of it, are all part and parcel of this dog-whistle, or indeed foghorn, politics—to try to demonstrate that they are as beastly about immigrants as parties to the right of them. That is incredibly stupid. There are two forms of leadership. One is where you spy where you think that the crowd is going, and you run around the front of it and pretend that it was all your idea in the first place. That is pathetic, and it is not leadership. The second is that you know what is right and you make the case for it.
I think that all of us in this room believe, to one degree or another, in our having secure borders and controlling migration. Given that we have taken back control—not that being in the EU stopped us controlling our borders, but given that we are in a situation where we control migration policy, I have a radical suggestion for the Minister: how about controlling migration in Britain’s interests, rather than doing us harm in the process? This policy harms my constituents. It harms people from Appleby through Ambleside, Arnside, Kendal and Kirkby Stephen to Kirkby Lonsdale. People who rely on care, and who have hospitality and tourism businesses, are damaged by it. But the worst-off are those people who are at the heart of it.
I will not mention names, but there is a constituent of mine from Windermere whose husband is from overseas, and they spent more than a year separated, after being married for some time, because of the policy we already have, which is about to get worse. She refers to the situation as “a hard, cruel process”. It is hard and cruel for her and her family.
I will not quote too many details, but here is a message from someone I will call a former constituent. As far as I am concerned, he is absolutely somebody I am proud to represent. He currently lives here with his non-British wife and two children. He says:
“I grew up and lived most of my life in Kendal, but will probably never be able to return now—at least not with my wife. There’s very little chance I could earn the proposed £38,700 needed for a spouse visa. It’s way too high, and will only serve to break up genuine families who only want to live an honest life back in the UK.”
My town and my community have been robbed of that family. For them to come back, they would have to be divided. This policy is stupid and cruel, and it should be cancelled.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, there are two more Back Benchers seeking to make a speech. I remind them that, at 10.30 am, I will be calling the Front Bench spokespersons from the three parties, so if they both co-operate, we can get them both in.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a fellow Sheffield MP, for calling this important debate. I am glad that Sheffield is a city of sanctuary. It is a diverse city that has a proud tradition of welcoming people who come here to work or create a new life away from conflict and persecution. Before I begin, I would like to point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive in this area from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
Although I will not dwell too much on the context behind the debate, it seems that Ministers are intent on blaming every kind of migrant for the chaos they themselves have created in the asylum and migration system and beyond, whether that is asylum seekers, social care workers, overseas graduates or now families. The approach of Ministers seems to be to disregard completely the benefits that a culturally diverse global workforce brings to the UK. If any public opinion is against families being able to be together, when it explained that there is no recourse to public funds, I bet that any objection to spousal visas would fall away. This is a cruel policy and it has unintended consequences.
Today I want to highlight the human cost by raising the experience of my constituent, Jim, and his daughter Elena. She currently lives in Japan with her husband and her son, and she wants to return to the UK with her family. Her husband is not a British citizen, but her son is a British national. They contacted me after they heard the minimum income threshold would increase to £29,000, and were worried about what this would mean for the savings they would need to come to the UK.
Before the increases to the minimum income threshold, it would have cost Elena £66,000 to come home with her family. To meet this requirement, she and her family did everything they could to save. If this figure is not shocking enough, with the new, shifted goalposts it will require £88,500 in savings. That is on top of the money for visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, an English language test, a Life in the UK test, a tuberculosis test and certified translations. The cost to Elena to live with her family in her country of birth is potentially around £100,000. Of course, that number will increase dramatically once the new threshold of £38,700 is implemented.
Elena could come back to the UK now, without her family, and find a job above the minimum threshold, but that would mean leaving them behind in Japan for who knows how long. There is no guarantee, given the statistics we have heard, that she would be able to get a job with the required salary. According to a survey conducted by Reunite Families UK, in situations where families are divided because of the immigration rules, 88% of respondents were separated for more than a year, 53% for more than three years, and 23% for more than seven years. That is far too much of a gamble for Elena and her family.
On 8 February, I wrote to the Minister requesting that he clarify the savings requirement for the entire family to move here, and I asked for the impact assessment that had been made on how this policy would affect people like Elena. I do not believe I have yet received a response. I would like to ask the Minister directly: does he think it is right that a British national and her British national son should need around £100,000 in the bank to live as a family in the UK? What does he think is an appropriate price tag to attach to family life?
Those are hard questions to answer because a price cannot be placed on the right to family, and yet this policy aims to do just that. It is time Ministers thought again about this rule, which seeks the price of everything while realising the value of nothing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing an important debate once again. I was very glad to listen to his speech.
I am not presenting any cases from my Arfon constituency, but not because there are none. White, Welsh-speaking, north-west Wales is susceptible to this particular rule, as is everywhere else in the UK. I want to concentrate on one particular point: the discriminatory nature of the rule.
As we know, the Government’s intention is to increase the minimum income threshold to £29,000, then to £38,700 at the end of the year. Those thresholds are notionally based on the cost of supporting families irrespective of public funds. That has been raised from a threshold of £18,600. That figure was recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee and, even at that point, it said that 45% of people would fall short of that criterion. I was interested to hear that the Government did not take advice from the Migration Advisory Committee before introducing the change.
Briefly, the measure is fair in form but unfair in application. It is what is sometimes called the freedom to dine at the Ritz: the door of the Ritz is open to all, but only some people can enter and enjoy its wonderful facilities. I am sure that it is wonderful, although I have never been there myself. The measure is discriminatory against some groups, not directly but indirectly, because the nature of their membership means that they are more likely to fail to meet the criterion, which is based on income, which certain groups are less able to meet—most obviously, and most egregiously, those with the protected characteristic of being a woman or of being black. As we know, people in those groups earn less than the population in general. On the face of it, that is indirect discrimination. My question to the Minister is: how can he justify that?
I will briefly consider the pay gap for Wales, which applies to other parts of the UK, including Scotland, Northern Ireland and most of England outside London and the south-east. The median income in Wales is £32,371: that is not the average, which is a lower figure. In Gwynedd, parts of which I represent, the median income is £30,500—again, that is the median, not the average. That is above the new £29,000 level, but below the intended £38,700. In that latter case, the vast majority of earners in Wales will very soon be unable to meet the new criterion through no fault of their own, given that their income, to some extent, is based on where they live. As we know, incomes in Wales are lower than elsewhere.
There is another group that is affected, and to which other hon. Members have referred. Young people are more likely to move abroad for education and for work, more likely to fall in love, more likely to start a family, and more likely, therefore, to be unable to return to the UK because of this indirectly discriminatory rule.
As I have said, my question to the Minister—I certainly do not envy him his job, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) said—is: how does he justify using a criterion that will structurally discriminate against specific groups and which will shortly discriminate more broadly against the majority of the people of Wales, which is my concern? How can he justify the freedom to dine at the Ritz in respect of a basic human right, which is to marry, have a family and live with that family? I think that freedom is open to the Minister and possibly to most Members in this Chamber, but it is not open to the majority of people in Wales and many, many more people across the UK.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George.
I speak very much in opposition to the higher threshold, which is discriminatory. Over the years since I was elected, many of my constituents have come to me because they have struggled to make the £18,600 threshold and have been separated from their family and loved ones as a result, despite working multiple jobs to try to reach that target. There have been people who have missed out on the target by the equivalent of an hour’s overtime and consequently have been unable to bring their loved ones to live with them.
The announcement of an increase in the threshold to £29,000, to £34,000 and eventually, it is believed, to £38,700 just before Christmas has caused great distress among my constituents, which has been echoed in the many contributions by Members this morning. People were extremely distressed because they did not know what that would mean for them, their families and their ability to have a family life. I want to put it on the record that the people affected by this change are our friends, our families, our neighbours and our constituents. I thank them all for the honour they have paid to Scotland by choosing it as their home. They deserve much better than having a price put on love and family life by the Conservative Government.
Many of these people do valuable jobs; they are not necessarily well-paid jobs, but they are indeed valuable to our economy and our society. As hon. Members have already highlighted, these jobs are in a wide range of sectors. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about people in the hospitality sector and other Members have talked about the impact on universities. The £38,700 threshold that has been talked about is well above the salaries of most post-doctoral researchers, so it will undermine Scotland’s ability to compete and attract people to work in science and technology, which are the great sectors where we want people to come and innovate. Such people are already hampered by the impact of Brexit, but they will be further hindered by the inability to attract people to come here.
Such a researcher visited my surgery quite recently. He had two teenaged children and sought to bring them here; eventually he hoped that his children would attain British citizenship. He had that all planned in his head as to how it would work. He knew it would be phenomenally expensive for a family of four to come here and do that, especially when we take into account the fact that they would have to renew their visas every two and a half years and the immigration health surcharge. Nevertheless, he was prepared to do that. However, the difficulties put in his way by the Home Office have led him to think, “Why am I doing this? Why would I incur so much expense when the Government make me feel as if it is not worth it and that I am not welcome?” That is an awful message for this Government to send out. As other Members have said, the system is already extremely expensive and people see little reward in it.
I was also contacted by an Australian-born British citizen who, over the years, has lived in both Scotland and Australia. He says that he wants to come here and bring his family with him, to bring up his children in Scotland. However, he has found the system prohibitively expensive and, once again, he wonders why he should engage with it. How many skills will we lose because this Government cannot see the value in what those people bring to our society?
Members have also pointed out that there is a disproportionate impact of the discriminatory and expensive proposal from the Government on women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, young people and people who live in places where average earnings are not very high, particularly in Scotland. The Government have produced no equality impact assessment—I have not seen one—to say what the impact of this policy will be on people in different geographies, on women, ethnic minorities, self-employed people and young people. It seems absolutely ludicrous that they have gone ahead with this policy without publishing an equality impact assessment.
I had an email from somebody whose family had moved abroad, who is worried that the door is now being closed on such families to prevent them from ever returning. He writes:
“My British-born nephew living in Canada and married to a Canadian citizen would never be able to return to the UK with his family”.
This measure is not about a group of foreigners who want to come here. This affects people who are already here and people who moved abroad for work, love or study. They have had the door closed upon them by this Government. It is absolutely appalling.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for bringing this debate to the House. I apologise to him for not being able to come down immediately; this is my day on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I want to put on the record my support for those across the United Kingdom who have the same problem as we do in Northern Ireland. I have fought a number of spousal and partner cases over the years, involving countries such as South Africa and the United States, where the issue of money has been critical. What the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and others have outlined is replicated in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, with greater severity, primarily because people in Northern Ireland have a smaller income than people in the rest of the United Kingdom, so for us it is critical. I commend both hon. Members for what they have said.
Alison Thewliss
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very pertinent point. I would like to hear from the Minister what consideration he has taken of the effect on the nations of the United Kingdom. There does not seem to me to be any objective assessment of what this will mean and the impact it will have. The Scottish Government have expressed concerns. We in Scotland have presented an alternative to the UK’s hostile environment and awful, expensive immigration system, which damage Scotland’s economy and society. We would like to see devolution in the short term, and full control over the immigration system in the long term. At the moment, it certainly does not benefit the people of Scotland or work in our interests.
The impact on hospitality, retail and tourism of ending freedom of movement has been huge. The Labour party wants to continue that economically and socially devastating policy. A recent newspaper report about an Italian restaurant in London, where there is a better level of pay, said that the end of freedom of movement and visa thresholds were catastrophic for the industry. I have heard the same for many years from people working in Indian restaurants who want to bring particularly skilled chefs over from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. This barrier in their path has an impact on the sustainability of those businesses. They cannot pay wages at the higher £38,700 level.
Will the Minister say why the salary threshold is £38,700? That figure has not yet been justified. Was it plucked out of air? We know that it did not come from the Migration Advisory Committee. I would like to know the evidence it is based on. If that is the minimum that anybody needs to live, why are wages in this country not £38,700 per person? Why has that been selected and plucked out of the air?
It is not that these people are a burden on the state, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned. They cannot be, because they have no recourse to public funds; they cannot claim benefits. They pay into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge, which the Government have recently increased. They are not any kind of burden on the state; it is a complete untruth and deeply unfair to say they are. I would like the Government to tell us on what basis they consider that might be the case, because they have been deeply unclear about that.
In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked about this policy being a means test on marriage. It is absolutely true that it is a tax on love. He talked of the impact on children, which I see regularly at my constituency surgeries in children who have been separated from their parents for a very long time. He spoke powerfully about the impact on children’s mental and physical health.
The Government claim that theirs is a family party, but it is not a family party if the only people picked are born in Britain and happen to be white. It is not a family party if it discriminates against people who happen to have been born somewhere else, or who fall in love with someone from somewhere else and have a family with them. The Government should think about the discriminatory impact of their policy and the message that that sends out about the status of Britain in the world. It does not happen in Scotland’s name. We seek an alternative—an independent Scotland where we can value everybody who comes, contributes, works, settles and lives in Scotland. We thank them for doing that. We do not close the door and make them feel unwelcome.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George.
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this important debate. He delivered an incredibly powerful speech that included examples of people who have had their lives turned upside down by the policy shift. Many individuals and families across the country have been profoundly impacted and there is real concern about the Government’s policy changes and handling of them. I will come to those points shortly. First, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for their important contributions to this debate.
The policy change to raise the minimum income threshold to secure a visa for a spouse from £18,600 to £29,000 and then later £38,700 is the direct result of the Conservative Government wanting to bring down immigration, after having allowed net migration to spiral to record levels of 745,000 in 2022, despite their repeated promise to the electorate that they would bring numbers down to the tens of thousands. In 2019 the incoming Conservative Government promised to reduce net migration, which at that time was 245,000, but since then that figure has trebled.
Labour is aware of that trend. We have set out plans to reduce our economy’s reliance on migrant workers by reforming the skills system, getting people off long-term sick leave and back into work, ending the 20% discount for businesses recruiting from abroad in shortage sectors and expecting businesses to draw up workforce plans to ensure they are able to recruit more local resident talent.
On the specifics of this debate, the historical stated aim of the spousal visa threshold was to make sure that couples and families have the income that enables them to be self-reliant, so that they do not need to rely on our social security system. That is why the income threshold was set at around £18,600 previously, with additional requirements per dependant. We agree with that basic aim, which is why the level set must genuinely reflect the income needed and required to support family in the UK. It must not be a number plucked out of thin air arbitrarily. That is why we have consistently raised concerns about the lack of an evidence base behind the initial increase to £29,000.
Extraordinarily, the Government have failed to provide any impact assessment of the number of people who will be affected by the shift or who will be prevented from coming to Britain to join their loved ones. Although we support attempts to deliver more sustainable levels of net migration to get the balance right in our economy and society, the Government must be honest and clear in providing a full impact assessment, so that Members are able to fully understand the impact of the proposed changes on their constituents and make informed choices based on an informed analysis.
The Opposition are strong believers in evidence-based policymaking, in stark contrast to the Government, who appear to be addicted to headline chasing, performative posturing and making policy on the hoof. We find it deeply disappointing that Ministers have chosen to shoot from the hip on policies across the spectrum of Government. To have done so on the matter that we are debating today is particularly reprehensible, given how directly it impacts on the deeply personal life choices that people have made and are making. Indeed, by appearing to pull these £29,000 and £39,000 thresholds out of thin air, Ministers have quite frankly behaved in a glib and flippant manner that is both contemptuous of Parliament and shockingly disrespectful towards the couples and families whose lives have been turned upside down by these changes.
The failure, or refusal, of Ministers to publish the impact assessment is particularly baffling because we know that both financial and equalities impact assessments have been completed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out in his speech. A report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee makes clear its utter exasperation with repeated failures by the Home Office to publish the information that Members of both Houses need to properly scrutinise the proposed changes and consider their implications. In the Committee’s words:
“A failure to provide impact information and on a timely basis, makes it impossible for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation properly. Moreover, impact information should be a useful tool in the policymaking process, helping departments to refine and improve their proposals. It appears to us that, instead, the Home Office too often tacks on impact analysis as an afterthought.”
Jim Shannon
I apologise for intervening again, but I am very conscious that in Northern Ireland the average wage is £28,939. Many people are on a lesser wage than that. Does the shadow Minister believe that the Minister should ask, in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly for their opinion on this? That would give him some realism about these facts and figures. The same thing should apply to the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Welsh Assembly, because connecting those three regions will produce with different figures.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that excellent intervention. He is absolutely right, because the point he is making is that we need to get an aggregate picture of the overall impact of this policy across the United Kingdom. Of course, that aggregate picture needs to be built up through the building blocks of key stakeholders and inputs, including the part of the United Kingdom from which he comes; I am sure that colleagues in Scotland and Wales would concur. He is absolutely right.
For good measure, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report added that,
“We have criticised the Home Office’s explanatory material with such frequency that we are concerned there may be a systemic or cultural issue that is preventing the Home Office from getting it right.”
Will the Minister please explain the actual aim of this policy change? Is it to make sure that migrants are self-reliant and do not need to rely on our social security system, or has the aim changed? How was the £29,000 figure decided? Please could we see some workings around that? Why are the Government introducing a huge jump to almost £39,000? Again, why that particular number? Will he promise to consult fully on the impact of the £29,000 change and the need for any subsequent increase before moving any further? Why has he not provided an impact assessment for this policy, both for the £29,000 and the £39,000? Also, why has he not asked the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review into this policy change, or even asked for the committee’s view on it?
The first thing Labour would do, if we are privileged enough to form the next Government, would be to ask the MAC to review this policy and to make recommendations about the level at which the threshold for spousal visas should be set in future. The MAC review that we would commission would consider a range of factors, including the historical aim of ensuring that migrants are able to be self-sufficient, and how the benefits system connects with that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central suggested exploring the way in which the threshold might interact with the minimum wage. The review would also consider the number of people affected, how they will be impacted, and the overall impact on net migration.
The MAC has not commissioned a report specifically on the family visa issue since 2011-12, but in its 2020 annual report it said that, given the amount of time since the 2012 changes came into effect, a fresh review could be worth while:
“We…think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route. In addition, it is a considerable time since the current income requirements were introduced, so more evidence should now be available to review the impact of these requirements”.
Will the Minister please explain why the Government have failed to act on the MAC’s 2020 suggestion? Will he now commit to requesting that review?
Hard-working, good people, their partners and their families are at the very heart of the policy, so why did it take so long for the Government to confirm that people who are already here and are reapplying will be exempt from the threshold rise? It caused a huge amount of undue hurt and anxiety, and I am afraid it confirmed the view, held by many, that the Government are motivated by performative cruelty. On a related point, will the Government make it clear to all those who started a new application before the changes were introduced that it will be processed under the old thresholds?
Finally, will the Minister at the very least commit to make a statement to the House setting out the results of the impact assessment, rather than bulldozing through secondary legislation that could have a far-reaching and profoundly damaging impact on the lives of couples and families all over Britain?
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and we have heard a variety of opinions. Members raised many points of clarification and asked many questions, and I will try to deal with as many as possible.
It might first be helpful if I set out the background to the decision to raise the minimum income requirement, which in the interest of brevity I will refer to as the MIR. Net migration is too high, and we must get it to a more sustainable place with better balance. In the year to June 2023, it was estimated to be 672,000. Last year, we set out measures to bring the number down by tightening the rules on care workers and skilled workers and ensuring that people can support the family members they bring over.
The British people want decisive action, and we are delivering the change that we promised. We are lifting the pressure on public services and protecting British workers with the utmost urgency, and we have set out and implemented a comprehensive plan to do so.
Tom Pursglove
I will take a couple of interventions early. I am conscious that there is a lot that I need to respond to, but I will gladly take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister mentioned public opinion, but I rather suspect that if the Government canvassed public opinion, they would find that people are shocked and appalled that their friends and colleagues are being split apart from their spouses. He prays in aid public opinion, but what research have the Government done on the proposals?
Tom Pursglove
There are materially relevant elements of the policy that have not been reflected in any Members’ comments. Later, I will come to the safeguards, which I think most people would think are fair and reasonable.
We are taking a fair approach to tackle net migration. It will not only bring down the numbers substantially but address the injustice of a system that, if left untouched, would enable employers to recruit cheap labour from overseas at the expense of the British worker, and put unsustainable pressure on our most vital public services.
Siobhan Baillie
The Minister said he would take early interventions, so I will come in now. It was my understanding from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that Labour wants to bring the numbers down and shares the Government’s ambition. I listened really carefully—I got my pen out to write things down—but I did not hear any specifics or ideas. Is it the Minister’s understanding that Labour plans to scrap the net migration package? I am slightly unclear about that, and it is relevant to my constituents, who are thinking through their options.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that it is an opaque situation. It is very unclear—
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman and his party consistently refuse to say what they will do on borders and migration, both legal and illegal. Yet again—[Interruption.]
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Cease this banter and get on with the debate, please.
Tom Pursglove
The truth is that in the remarks from the shadow Front Bencher there was no clarification of the Opposition’s stance on whether they would seek to cancel the package of net migration measures that are already in train. People can draw their own conclusions on that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) raised a whole host of different issues in relation to borders and migration policy, including the issue of care workers. I would argue that seeing 120,000 dependants coming with 100,000 care workers is just not sustainable. He also raised the issue of illegal migration and conflated the legal migration piece with the illegal migration piece. Again, I make no apology for the steps the Government are taking, including through the legislation we passed yesterday, to try to put out of business the evil criminal gangs who put people in small boats, take their money, send them to sea, and have no regard as to whether they get here safely or not. We saw the consequences of that yet again this morning, in the most terrible and tragic of ways.
We are making strong headway in delivering our package of measures on net migration, with further improvements to modernise and enhance the security of the UK border continuing throughout 2024. The decision to raise the MIR is a key part of our plan to reduce overall migration levels. Taken together, the changes we are implementing will mean that the 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would not now be able to come. The right to family life is a qualified right, and in making our decision we carefully balanced that right against the legitimate aim to protect the UK’s economic wellbeing.
Tom Pursglove
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that I want to allow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central the time to say a few words at the end.
The MIR was introduced in July 2012 to ensure that family migrants could be supported at a reasonable level, so that they do not unreasonably become a burden on the British taxpayer, and to help to ensure that they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.
Paul Blomfield
Given that the Minister has heard from many Members that spouses coming to the UK have no recourse to public funds and pay the health surcharge, in what specific way are they a burden?
Tom Pursglove
I wanted to come to that point in the course of my response. On access to public funds, our position is that the MIR will prevent migrant partners from accessing public funds until they achieve settlement, when they would be entitled to access public funds should they be needed. They are not entitled to public funds on arrival, as has been said and acknowledged, but if they are destitute or at risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a child, or if there are exceptional circumstances, that dynamic changes. Where we allow access, the applicant is likely to move to the 10-year route to settlement. That is where access to public funds is relevant.
The minimum income requirement has not been increased in line with inflation or real wages since its introduction, nor has it been adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. In that context, we have reviewed the threshold and taken the decision to raise it to match the level of income needed for someone to come here as a skilled worker—as Members will be aware, that is £38,700 per year—which ensures that migration policy is supportive of our wider ambition for the UK to be a high-wage, high-productivity, high-skill economy. That is the basis on which the level has been determined.
On the issue of consultation with the Migration Advisory Committee, we considered previous advice and evidence provided by the MAC regarding net fiscal contributions and access to benefits when we made the decision. We did not seek further advice from the MAC before making the decision to increase the MIR.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way briefly; I am conscious that there are a few more points to respond to.
Sir Stephen Timms
Why did the Minister not ask the Migration Advisory Committee for its views?
Tom Pursglove
Over recent months we have commissioned work from the Migration Advisory Committee on several fronts, including currently on the undergraduate route and to carry out a fuller review of the immigration salary list. There are, then, ongoing workstreams with the MAC. To make requests of it to consider areas of migration policy is within the gift of Ministers. We will keep that position under review, as we do with the entirety of our immigration system and the policy levers available to Government.
One key element that has not been reflected in the debate is the fact that we have recognised the need to allow families the time to plan effectively and to make arrangements to meet the relevant income requirement. That is why we are implementing the increase incrementally, and why it has not been applied retrospectively. The first increase, to £29,000, came into force on 11 April. A second planned increase will take the threshold to £34,500, with a third rise to at least £38,700 taking place by early 2025. That is one of two key areas of the policy that have not been given an airing today, along with consideration of the fact that the changes have not been applied retrospectively.
The other policy area to mention is the fact that we will continue to grant permission when to do otherwise would breach an applicant’s article 8 right—the right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Such an assessment involves considering whether there are insurmountable obstacles to family life between the applicant, their partner and their children continuing outside the UK. Caseworkers consider those factors as part of the decision-making process, to ensure that we get the right decisions in individual cases and that due and proper regard is given to all relevant circumstances.
I am always happy to debate the intricacies of our policies, but the reality is that net migration is too high. This Government have a policy to bring the numbers down by 300,000 in the way that I have described. A number of changes are now in motion, having been developed and announced, but after giving people time to adjust to them in advance of their coming into force. I believe we have a responsibility to reduce the numbers, and that is what our plan is designed to achieve, but the change is not retrospective and is being introduced incrementally, while the article 8 opportunity remains in the application process for people to be able to set out their circumstances so that the right decisions can be made in individual cases.
Paul Blomfield
I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and particularly the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). I reassure her that I know she is not alone on the Conservative Benches in the concerns she expressed.
Contributions to the debate came from all parts of the UK and from six political parties represented in the House. We might present our arguments through the prism of our particular party perspective, but I think the same case has shone through all contributions: that this policy is not fair and not in our country’s interests. There are different approaches that should be explored. We need to drop this policy now and to develop a better alternative, and referring it to the MAC would be a useful first step.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered minimum income thresholds for partner and spousal visas.
Household Energy Debt
(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered levels of household energy debt.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. It may seem strange to be debating energy debt with summer fast approaching. However, although the weather has largely improved, the energy debt situation most certainly has not. Millions have not bright sunshine, but black clouds hanging over them. Growing numbers in Scotland and across the UK are struggling, and many are drowning, as debts mount but energy needs remain constant. Ofgem has found that energy debt levels now stand at a staggering £3.1 billion—billion, not million—and that the average debt has increased by about 50% over the last 12 months, with the number of households in debt increasing by about 20%.
The situation is worsening. National Energy Action, a fuel poverty charity, estimates that even with new price cap levels, about 6 million households in the UK will be in fuel poverty. The situation in Scotland, with its more northerly latitude and harsher climate, is even more bleak. Energy Action Scotland suggests, based on the Scottish Government’s house condition survey, that fuel poverty afflicted 31% of households in 2022. That is almost one third of people in an energy-rich land that powers the UK economy living in fuel poverty—and that was two years ago. In northern areas and the islands, the figure was almost, or even over, 50%. Those are the parts closest to the oil and gas fields, yet they are denied access to affordable fuel.
The new bounty of renewable energy adds to the perversity. Scotland is providing 124 billion kWh to be cabled south. That is enough to power Scotland’s homes 12 and a half times over, yet many Scots cannot afford to heat their own home. What an absurdity for a country to be energy rich, yet its people fuel poor.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He is right to highlight fuel poverty. In England, the fuel poverty figure—the proportion of households where more than 10% of wages go to pay for fuel—is about 13%, and he mentioned that in Scotland it is 31%. In Northern Ireland, it stands at 22%. Does he agree that people need help? As he rightly said, just because the summer months are coming and it will get better does not mean that the problem is disappearing. We must take more effective steps right now, and we look to the Minister for the answers.
Kenny MacAskill
I fully accept the hon. Member’s intervention. This is an issue across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Climatic matters are worsening the situation in Scotland, but other factors affect other areas. As I will go on to say, the days of the summer months being some protection are long passing.
What does this mean for those in debt? They are real people, not statistics. Citizens Advice Scotland states that the average fuel debt for someone seeking its help is about £2,300. That is just the average—for some, it will be worse—and it is only for fuel; people may have other debts as they juggle their finances trying to manage. During 2023, the disability charity Scope received 7,422 referrals to its disability energy support service. Of those referred, 364 were in debt. Disabled households require an additional £975 per month simply to have the standard of living of a non-disabled household, yet their average debt is more than £1,100.
According to Age Scotland, older people have been massively impacted. Its research highlights that the majority of over-50s in Scotland feel financially squeezed and are cutting back on essentials, yet pensioners in Scotland have the highest rates of fuel poverty, with 36% in fuel poverty according to the most recent data. Worryingly, 24%—more than any other household group—are classified as living in extreme fuel poverty. All those statistics will have worsened as energy prices have risen and the general cost of living increased. The perversity of having to choose between heating and eating is growing, not diminishing. These are not just numbers or statistics; they are human beings, some of them even children.
While spring is usually a season for looking forward with anticipation, this spring has seen the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in many parts of Scotland, and with that rain come damp and cold. The days may be getting longer, but the need to heat homes remains as vital as when the nights were longer. Climate change is making our climate more changeable, but that simply makes it more challenging. As inclement weather straddles even supposedly moderate months, heating is often a year-round requirement, and not just for those who are unwell or housebound. The seasons turn and summer will be followed by autumn and then winter, exacerbating an already difficult situation. The thought of the colder months to come will send a shiver through many—from fear, not cold.
Energy is about access to not just heat but power. It allows the mother to power the washing machine to keep her kids clean and tidy; the parent to power the school laptop, ensuring that those children can achieve their educational potential; and individuals to charge their phones in order to access employment opportunities, benefiting not just themselves but society collectively. Rather than berating and punishing people for not being in work, maybe the Prime Minister would be better advised to assist them in achieving it.
The need for power even applies to those who need life-saving equipment. Ill health not only often keeps people housebound but makes them more susceptible to the cold. Being able to keep warm is essential for recovery. Similarly, dialysis and oxygen are not luxuries to prettify someone’s home; they are essential for their very existence. That is why the debate is urgent. The time to act is now, not when winter is upon us. By then the situation will be even worse for many, and tragically it may even be too late for some.
National Energy Action advised that not only are more people falling into debt but those already in debt are seeing their situation worsen. Only about one third of the overall debt figure of £3.1 billion consists of debt where there is an arrangement to pay. That arrangement may be manageable for many, but for some it might prove too much, as energy and other costs increase. What happens then? Two thirds of that debt—over £2 billion—consists of “arrears”, which is defined as debt without a repayment arrangement. If someone has no plan for how to repay, and is struggling to meet their current bills without even considering meeting arrears that have accrued, how will they get through spring, let alone winter? Many people see no way out of the morass facing them.
Action is needed to address energy debt every bit as much as the continuing crisis of energy costs. Ofgem has called for inputs on debt and affordability, with submissions closing on 13 May. However, Ofgem is a creature of statute; it can only do what it is authorised to do, and the parameters and the final decision remain with Government. That is another reason why this debate is apposite: it is not just that the situation is worsening, but that the decisions must be made now.
Those facing this crisis with the burden weighing them down are not the feckless or ne’er-do-wells who never seek to pay their way, but the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. It is not a “won’t pay” campaign, as I once ran in Scotland against Thatcher’s poll tax, but simply a “can’t pay” situation for those who just do not have the cash or wherewithal.
Another cruelty of our energy market is that those with the least pay the most, hence they face the highest risk of debt, not just difficulty in paying their bills. Energy costs have increased for all, but the proportion paid by the poorest and most vulnerable is greatest. As National Energy Action pointed out, standing charges have almost doubled over the past five years, with households now paying over £300 regardless of payment method. It is an energy poll tax that hits the poorest hardest. The billionaire with his swimming pool pays the same as the widow with her kids in a council flat. Charges vary across the country, with those in colder Scotland paying a higher rate than those here in London.
Tariff prices are also highest for those least able to pay. Standard credit is far more expensive than direct debit, but for some no other method is available. They are left paying more from a smaller budget. Prepayment has seen tariff costs belatedly reduced and is now the cheapest tariff, but it can have other issues for those forced to pay by that means. Let us recall that the moratorium on forced installation of prepayment meters has ended. Warrants are now being obtained to force them on even those who do not want them, for they obviously suit suppliers, who can monitor and even restrict consumption, even if more people will be afflicted by that perverse euphemism, “self-disconnection”—a benign phrase, but a wicked outcome. It is not a voluntary choice, but imposed by financial circumstances. Lacking the funds to buy the card or pay for more credit, people simply go without.
Let us also remember that putting people on to prepayment meters has other significant consequences. As Citizens Advice Scotland points out, it results in debt repayments being added to consumption charges—folk pay more but get less, with debt, not just standing charges, to be met before they even get a flicker—and people may not be able to switch supplier even if lower tariffs are available.
The Government will claim that energy prices have fallen and, of course, over the recent period that is most certainly true; however, the baseline is not last year, but when the energy crisis arose. Prices are far higher than they were then, and the supposed global issue of energy costs, whether due to the war in Ukraine or other international pressures, has seen prices in the UK rise far higher than in other lands. Everyone is suffering as a result—business and domestic customers—but it is the poorest and most vulnerable feeling the most pain.
Moreover, while the energy price guarantee has dropped, let us not forget that there has been sleight of hand. Not only is the guarantee predicated on average costs, hence it takes no account of differing circumstances—climatic issues in northern parts, personal needs such as ill health, and so on—but the average energy consumption used in formulating it was reduced, as it was stated that household insulation had improved. Of course, that is the case for many well-insulated new homes, but in all likelihood it will not apply to someone in an older property, whether they own it or live in a council house, are a housing association tenant or have a private landlord, yet their needs remain the same.
National Energy Action states that if it was calculated on the former assessment, the price cap would be £1,769, not £1,690, for the typical dual fuel household. That is almost an additional £100 for those in the poorest housing stock to find. Prior to the crisis, the price cap for the typical dual fuel household paying by direct debit was £1,138. It is now 56% higher, but costs have risen even more for those in harder-to-heat households or on higher tariff payment methods.
Ofgem acknowledges that there is £3 billion of debt in the energy market. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition calculates that there are allowances in the energy price cap to service that debt amounting to £1.5 billion per annum. That just pays for servicing the debt, not for reducing it. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If that is happening, how is it being calculated, collected and distributed? Where is the transparency? Are consumers paying for their suppliers’ accrued debt? Surely we are entitled to know what we are paying for and what the big corporates are getting from us.
We know that there is a crisis at the moment and that the winter to come could be harsh and cruel, so what is to be done? First, a social tariff, once alluded to by Ministers and standard in many lands—even those without the exorbitant prices we face—should be introduced. That would provide solace for the poorest and most vulnerable. Secondly, we should restore the moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters, which is iniquitous and cruel.
Thirdly, the warm home discount scheme needs to be reviewed and enhanced. Rather than being issued arbitrarily to second home owners—never mind to those not requiring them, as was once done—payments should be centred on those most in need, addressing hardship and mitigating existing and even increasing debt. The current support of £150 is simply inadequate and too many are missing out entirely, even though they are entitled and in need. The payment was £140 before the energy crisis arose and prices rocketed; it badly needs to be increased to reflect that. The Social Market Foundation has made proposals that the Government would do well to adopt.
Finally, we need a debt write-off scheme, as suggested by National Energy Action. The amount owed and the number in debt are such that many can never make full repayment. The only way to achieve much reduction is to provide support through matching payments. The details of the scheme can be discussed, but the principle should be non-negotiable. It need not be a blank cheque for others simply to cease paying; it could be time limited to debt incurred during the fuel crisis, and other criteria could be applied. Banks were bailed out. Wastage of personal protective equipment, if not fraud, has been written off. It seems that there are unlimited funds for weapons of war, but not for a war on poverty. If assistance can be given to the few, similar support should be provided for the many.
Energy debt levels are rising and, with winter looming, fears for access to warmth and power, as well as for people’s ability simply to keep body and soul together, are increasing. Those are basic human needs and should be human rights. Action needs to be taken to ease the cost of energy and reduce the burden of debt for the poorest and most vulnerable. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of National Energy Action to discuss the crisis? Even more importantly, will she address the perversity of fuel poverty in an energy-rich land?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for securing this debate on such an important issue, which I care deeply about. He mentioned what it is like to live in fuel poverty. I assure him that I personally understand exactly what that is like, having known the difficulty as a child of using something as simple as a washing machine, and latterly having a mother with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and having to make decisions about using oxygen. I reiterate that I fully understand the situation that we are talking about, which is why I take this matter incredibly seriously as the Minister for Affordability.
As the hon. Member for East Lothian pointed out, levels of consumer energy debt have risen in recent years, which the Government recognise as an important and growing problem. Energy debt can harm consumers in several ways. It can encourage them to self-ration energy, leading to cold or damp homes, or cause households to cut back in other ways. The Government expect suppliers to do all they can to support customers in debt, particularly vulnerable customers. I encourage anyone who is concerned about keeping up with bills to contact their supplier. They should also contact organisations such as Citizens Advice, which may be able to provide support.
Last year, I met energy suppliers to outline our expectation that they do all they can to support those in debt and to help other consumers avoid falling into debt. I also meet regularly with stakeholders such as Citizens Advice to discuss how we can work together to best support consumers. I welcome Ofgem’s ongoing call for input on affordability and debt. For the reasons that the hon. Member for East Lothian set out, it is right that Ofgem takes a detailed look at the issue. I look forward to understanding its next steps to ensure that consumers can be better protected and that the debt burden does not leave us in an unsustainable position.
Despite high levels of consumer debt, energy prices have fallen significantly since last year. The price cap has fallen by nearly 60% since it peaked last year, including by £238 in April. Over the last two years, the Government have demonstrated a commitment to supporting vulnerable people with one of the largest support packages in Europe. Taken together, the total support provided between 2022 and 2025 to help house- holds with the cost of living will be worth more than £108 billion—an average of £3,800 per UK household.
Millions of vulnerable households have received up to £900 in further cost of living payments, with an extra £150 to those eligible for disability benefits. These payments are in addition to the established financial support available to low-income and vulnerable households through the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment, which provides £25 during very cold weather. An extra cost of living payment of up to £300 was paid to pensioners’ households through the winter fuel payment, while the Government continue to provide support through the warm home discount, which provides low-income households with a £150 rebate off their energy bill every winter.
Although the Government are doing a lot to help households, I am concerned that some customers remain in energy debt. Suppliers should do all they can to support these households and ensure that consumers do not fall into debt. Last year, Energy UK announced a voluntary debt commitment with 14 energy suppliers, which collectively committed to go above and beyond current licensing conditions to help households with energy bill debt over winter. Those energy suppliers committed to providing immediate assistance to those in debt, as well as arming people with knowledge and resources to empower them to manage bills more efficiently. However, this is an ongoing issue, and it is also important that suppliers provide quality customer service to support consumers before they fall into debt, and quickly help those who are already in debt.
The hon. Member for East Lothian raised the issue of prepayment meters, which, of course, can be a useful tool for some consumers and their energy suppliers to manage their debt. It is important, however, that the rules around their use are sufficient to protect consumers and are enforced properly. Involuntary installations should be used only as a very last resort. Ofgem has strengthened its licensing conditions for suppliers to conduct involuntary prepayment meter installations, with exemptions in place for households with vulnerable individuals, such as people who are 75 or older.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will also have been in contact about standing charges, which, as he will know, remain a matter for Ofgem. Ofgem launched a call for input on standing charges, which ended in January and received just over 30,000 individual responses. It looks at how standing charges are applied to energy bills, and at the alternatives that can be considered. Ofgem is currently analysing those responses and will publish its response in due course. In March, the Secretary of State and I wrote to Ofgem to outline the Government’s expectation that standing charges should be kept as low as possible, or reformed if necessary, to make them fairer for consumers.
The Government have already committed to further support for households. In the autumn statement, we announced the biggest increase in the national living wage, which is worth around £1,800 for a full-time worker and will benefit around 2.7 million workers. We also announced the next generation of welfare reforms, with benefit payments increasing by 6.7% and pensions by 8.5%. In the spring Budget, we also cut national insurance by a further 2%, meaning that someone on an average wage has the lowest personal effective tax rate since 1975. We have also extended the household support fund until September 2024, with an additional £500 million in funding, and we have been working across Government and with Ofgem and suppliers to better identify customers who are getting into problem debt and to ensure that households are properly supported. I understand that this is a complex matter, and one that is very important to the hon. Gentleman.
Kenny MacAskill
Would the Minister clarify whether there is an element in an individual’s bill that is factored in by Ofgem that relates to the debt servicing of suppliers?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He will know that there was an announcement of a one-off price cap adjustment of £28 per household for direct debit and standard credit customers. As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at the standard charges system as a whole and whether it should be reformed.
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I am always very keen to meet hon. Members across parties, to work across Departments—for example, with the Department for Work and Pensions—and to meet stakeholders, because we can only really tackle this issue together. To reiterate, we must remember that we are talking about individual people and their individual lives, so I am incredibly happy to meet and discuss it further.
This is a complex matter, which is important to the hon. Member for East Lothian and other hon. Members. I hope that I have provided some reassurance about the action that is being taken by the Government, Ofgem and suppliers to help all consumers. I give my assurance that, as the Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability, it is uppermost in my mind that we should never be making vulnerable people more vulnerable. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian again for bringing forward this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Lithium: Critical Minerals Supply
(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the supply of lithium and other critical minerals.
It is a great pleasure to be able to lead this debate today, especially with you in the Chair, Sir Gary—I know you will enjoy me talking extensively about Cornwall once again. This debate is very important to me because this particular subject is relevant to my constituents in St Austell and Newquay, and indeed Cornwall as a whole. The main content of my remarks will be focused on lithium extraction and production because we have an opportunity in Cornwall to extract and provide substantial amounts of lithium in the coming years. I recognise that lithium is by no means the only critical mineral and that, beyond the application of lithium-ion batteries, there will be many other industries that are reliant on so many other kinds of critical minerals.
Critical minerals are defined as commodities other than fuel that are crucial to a state’s economy or national security, with a supply chain that is particularly vulnerable for a number of reasons, such as geopolitical tensions. Following a comprehensive assessment by the British Geological Survey, which evaluated minerals according to their economic vulnerability and supply risks, the UK Government now identify 18 minerals as critical. That list is kept under review and is not meant to be definitive, but it will be informed by the science as it evolves and new discoveries as well.
Those minerals are deemed critical because they underpin the supply chains of modern-day technologies that are critical to day-to-day life—from electronic communications, our smartphones and our watches to the automotive industry, particularly electric vehicles, as well as defence and cyber-security. They can also have critical applications in other fields, including the pharmaceutical industry. They are more relevant than ever before, particularly as we transition to a green economy, and the technologies that will help us to achieve that depend on those minerals. Lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel are needed in large quantities to make electric vehicle batteries and they will form the future backbone of the global automotive industry, while wind turbines depend on permanent magnets built with rare earth elements and copper. Without a sustainable and secure supply of critical minerals for the coming decades, we will simply not be able to meet our net zero target, maintain our critical defence and security capabilities, or support the creation of thousands of highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the tech, defence and automotive industries.
It is therefore no surprise that the global demand for critical minerals has shot up in recent times. In particular, there are concerns about the supply of lithium, which is going to come under huge pressures globally in the race to create more lithium-ion-based products. Securing a reliable supply of lithium is going to be crucial to our future economic prosperity. High-grade deposits of lithium can currently be found in four countries around the world—Argentina, Australia, Chile and China—with those countries dominating the global market at present.
Looking a bit further up the supply chain, China hosts 60% of the world’s lithium refining capacity. A report published at the end of last year by the Foreign Affairs Committee found that China looks ready to exploit the economic advantages arising from its global dominance of the lithium refinery market, and there are concerns that the UK has not yet taken steps to embrace the opportunities provided by lithium and other critical minerals. With technological advances constantly shifting towards a reliance on more lithium-heavy batteries, lithium extraction will need to increase significantly across the world to meet that demand. Analysis has shown that by 2030, even with global supply ramping up significantly, there will still be a 55% gap between supply and demand, because of a sharp increase in the demand.
Other critical minerals used in the production of batteries also appear to be in short supply, but analysts agree that of all the minerals involved, the supply of lithium presents the greatest challenge. But there is good news. The UK has a significant deposit of this most critical of minerals in Cornwall. We have known about its presence since the 1850s; I have seen mining maps from the 1850s that point to the fact that lithium is present. There was even a small mine in my constituency just outside St Dennis that in world war two supplied small amounts of lithium for the war effort. With demand and prices now rising, these deposits have become viable for extraction.
The Government have recognised this issue. In July 2022, they published the UK’s first-ever critical minerals strategy, which was a key landmark in the recognition of the importance of securing a sustainable supply of these minerals. In March 2023, it was reviewed and renewed with the “Critical Minerals Refresh”. It was disappointing, however, that this latest policy paper made no mention of the significant increase in the supply of critical minerals needed to meet our net-zero targets and energy security requirements. I am concerned that there seems to be a silo mentality in some parts of Government, with different Departments looking at different aspects of what is needed to reach net zero and secure our future. We need a cross-Government, joined-up approach to link up our priorities. Critical minerals challenges and opportunities cannot be addressed in an isolated manner.
Some people have asked, “Well, why can’t we just rely on imports of these minerals?” As I have mentioned, China is looking to dominate and control supply, and concerns have been expressed about the ethical and environmental reputation of lithium extraction around the world. People are becoming more aware of the need to understand the supply chain of products they purchase and the standards of supply and production. There is little point in buying an electric vehicle if substantial environmental harm is caused in the supply chain process.
Lithium and cobalt have attracted the most international attention, with reports of the use of child labour in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo and abuses of indigenous rights in lithium mining projects in South America making global headlines. This proves there is a good reason why the UK must shift its focus from getting its supply of critical minerals abroad to securing them domestically wherever possible. Having a domestic supply of critical minerals will mean that we can control the standards of supply, maintaining the highest environmental and ethical standards as well as reducing our carbon footprint by not having to important these materials. It will also keep value in the UK economy.
Reaching our net-zero target by 2050 presents a challenge and an opportunity. Clean growth has been at the heart of the UK Government’s plan to level up our industry and economy. This country aspires to be a world leader in electric vehicle and battery technologies, but that will only be achieved by growing our battery manufacturing. Importing will not be the answer. The more we can source the materials we need domestically, the more it will help us to achieve this goal. Doing so will mean that we can create green jobs of the future within the UK, attracting investment and growing our economy while reducing our carbon emissions.
Cornwall has produced virtually every battery metal in the past. It is imperative that we fully exploit the geological potential the duchy offers once again to lay a path to our transition to net zero. Cornwall powered the industrial revolution with copper and tin, and we are ready to power the green revolution and be at the heart of our nation’s prosperity once again. We are fortunate in Cornwall to have two excellent companies, both operating out of my constituency of St Austell and Newquay, developing lithium production in different ways: Cornish Lithium and Imerys British Lithium. Without going into the technical detail, they are both pioneering new methods of extracting and processing lithium from hard rock and brines beneath Cornwall. Both are working to ensure the highest environmental standards.
One of the questions I am most frequently asked is about how much local opposition there is to the lithium extraction, largely because of the industry’s reputation around the world. The answer is virtually none. That is, first, because mineral extraction is what we do in Cornwall; it is in our DNA. We have been continuously mining tin and copper for thousands of years and china clay for the past 280, and the vast majority of people locally are delighted to see the opportunity to revive our mining heritage for a new era. Secondly, the lithium is located in formerly mined land, so we are not digging up new countryside to extract lithium. Just as importantly, both Imerys British Lithium and Cornish Lithium are committed to working with local communities. They have both recently held public engagement sessions. At those events, they made clear their commitment to the highest standards and the lowest possible impact on the environment.
Between them, the Cornish Lithium and Imerys British Lithium projects expect to be able to supply 40,000 tonnes a year of the 80,000 tonnes that UK car manufacturers will need for batteries. That is half of the supply from a domestic source. That will put the UK at a competitive advantage, as well as being good news for the Cornish economy. Some people predict that lithium extraction could be like tin all over again for Cornwall.
It is not just lithium; we still have tin and copper deposits in Cornwall, where copper is potentially making a comeback, having been the focal point of our first mining revolution. High-grade qualities that are 16 times higher than the global average have been discovered during the underground exploration of lithium at the United Downs site, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Also in his constituency is South Crofty mine, an ancient tin mine with records of mining in the area as early as the 16th century. Nowadays, the site presents the fourth-highest-grade tin resource in the world. It is under the ownership of Cornish Metals, which is working to ensure that Cornwall can begin supplying our growing demand for tin in the near future, and is expected to employ more than 200 people.
I was pleased to receive an update from the Minister that went out to all MPs in a “Dear colleague” letter last week, informing us of the establishment of the new Critical Imports Council and its first quarterly meeting, which the Minister chaired. That is welcome news. The council brings senior Government officials together with stakeholders from industry and academia to discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by the global supply chain landscape. In an ever more uncertain and rapidly evolving world economy, it is vital we work closely with strategic and academic partners to help the UK adapt and respond to risks and opportunities. I was pleased to learn that key sectors, including manufacturing, technology, health and life sciences industries were represented at the meeting. From medicines to smart watches, critical minerals are needed now more than ever, so it is welcome that the Critical Minerals Association, which provides the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, and the Institute for Minerals, Materials and Mining are both members of the council.
I look forward to receiving further updates on the council’s work in the light of the discussions we will have on lithium and other critical minerals today. I hope the Minister will pay close attention to the work of businesses such as Imerys British Lithium and Cornish Lithium in my mid-Cornwall constituency. Indeed, I invite him to come to Cornwall to see for himself to see the fantastic opportunities that lie underneath our rocks.
I have engaged with both businesses over a number of years and they have a few requests of Government to help and support them as they develop to provide the lithium we will need. The first is on regulation, which needs to be more coherent and understandable. There is too much of a patchwork of regulations at present, which is making it hard for the industry to navigate. Between getting permits and planning, there are plenty of bureaucratic hoops that they have to jump through. It is not beyond the realms of imagination to have a body like the Coal Authority for lithium and other critical minerals, to help harmonise and make regulations clearer. The future for lithium, with the right regulation, is extremely bright and offers an opportunity for the UK economy.
Secondly, a range of standards on carbon intensity and ethical traceability of supply chains is coming down the track. The UK needs to prepare itself to take advantage of the opportunities that presents. Lithium from Cornwall presents a huge opportunity to meet those standards. It is in our interests to support responsible, transparent and traceable supply chains. We should consider developing a required traceability standard for all lithium used in UK manufacturing. We should also consider including lithium extraction within the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is currently being consulted on.
Post Brexit, we now have our own system of chemical classification distinct from EU regulations, which allows us to review whether those classifications are right in the light of the best and most up-to-date scientific research. Crucially, it also allows us to take a stand against proposals that are not supported by the available science, such as the European Chemicals Agency’s proposal to classify lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide and lithium chloride as category 1A reproductive toxicants in 2021.
Although that might be justified for some other toxic substances, for lithium it is simply not backed up by the evidence. It is, therefore, welcome news that the Health and Safety Executive published its own opinion in August 2023, outlining concerns with the evidence and methods used by its European counterpart. It triggered a full assessment and called for further evidence. It is important we examine all the evidence, but the process could take several years, and no end date is currently in sight. That could leave a highly capital intensive and critical industry facing regulatory uncertainty. This could be a key Brexit benefit, and I ask the Minister to give an update on what is being done to accelerate this process to a conclusion as soon as possible.
In summary, we hear a great deal about the need to strengthen our military defence, and rightly so in an increasingly uncertain and hostile world, but in my opinion not enough is said and not enough attention is given to strengthening our supply of critical minerals. We face a risk of a global supply chain of minerals such as lithium being controlled by states that are not our friends and allies. I urge the Government to do more in this field. Cornwall stands ready to step up and play a significant role in providing the secure, clean and ethical supply of some of the critical minerals we are going to rely on the most in the decades to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for leading today’s debate. His speech was a tour de force, setting the scene so well. The opportunities in his constituency are apparent and achievable, and I support him. Northern Ireland may not have the access to lithium that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we want to be part of this advanced technological progress. That is the thrust of where I am coming from.
It is great to be here because there is no doubt that in the not so distant future we will be having more conversations about the sustainability of and demand for lithium to meet our commitments to net zero targets. We are here to have an in-depth discussion on how we can plan for that.
In December 2023 a major milestone was reached: to deliver a domestic supply of lithium in the UK with home-grown technology and engineering. We have a very clear role to play in the world and a clear role to play for ourselves in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We can all contribute to and gain advantages from what is being brought forward. Three companies from the north of England signed an agreement aimed at delivering the UK’s first commercial-scale direct lithium extraction plant that combines UK-developed technology, UK-sourced lithium-bearing saline brine and UK process engineering expertise. Those are things that we can do and I am pleased that the Minister and his Department are doing just that.
It is always important to me that Northern Ireland can play a role in modernising technology. It may not be possible for Northern Ireland to have the extraction process to which the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay has referred but, none the less, I think we can play our role. There is currently no supply of lithium in Northern Ireland and, to date, sectors relating to net zero, such as energy and transport, have represented a small proportion of total mineral demand. But it has been projected that the transition to net zero will result in a significant increase in demand in the future. If that is where we are going, and that is the target we are aiming for, I would like to see my constituents, and people from across all constituencies of Northern Ireland, being part of that. There is also a role for Scotland, though it seems that there may not be the same possibilities in Wales, unfortunately.
Some smaller businesses specialise in lithium batteries. For example, in my neighbouring constituency of North Down, a company called Lithium Go specialises in providing stable battery power to the golf trolley industry. I believe there is scope for Northern Ireland to contribute on a wider scale. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for the Economy to see how we can advance the technology and the opportunity to businesses in Northern Ireland? We have the skilled workforce, we have the opportunities, we have the interest and I believe that we can do our part in Northern Ireland.
While I understand that mineral planning policy is a devolved matter, areas of potential geological prospectivity for critical minerals in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales must be recognised by the UK Government centrally. In an answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated that two areas of geological prospectivity for lithium had been identified in Scotland and no areas in Wales. When the SNP shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), speaks, he will no doubt mention that. That shows that Scotland has a head start, in conjunction with the opportunities in England on the mainland. Northern Ireland was not mentioned, so could the Minister provide clarity on what discussions he has held with his relevant counterparts in Northern Ireland on their role in the supply of lithium and other minerals?
We all in this House, in all political parties and on both sides of the Chamber, have a commitment to making the world a better place. That is a goal that all of us try to achieve, and sustainability is part of that. Yet we must all ensure that these are not unachievable goals, but that they have a solid foundation and practicality. We must sort out how we can supply lithium safely and in an environmentally friendly way. That has to be a priority for us all.
I often say—and I say it with great honesty and truthfulness—that I want this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to succeed, to prosper, to do well. I believe one of the great advantages we have is being able to do that together. My request to the Minister, and to others who will speak, is to ensure that we can all gain. In Northern Ireland, we deserve the same opportunity. We can contribute greatly to this debate and what we are trying to achieve.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for securing this really important debate. As his successor as chair of the all-party group for critical minerals, it has been my privilege to champion this industry in Parliament in recent years. I am told that the phrase “critical minerals” has been used more in Hansard in the past couple of years than in the whole of Parliament’s history. That shows that critical minerals are firmly on the agenda and that everybody is starting to talk about them.
My hon. Friend knows that every opportunity to discuss lithium and other critical minerals is a chance to raise the profile of this vital sector and outline its importance to our energy security as a nation and a global economy. It should also give our constituents in Cornwall a sense of pride. The sector is absolutely essential, given that demand for critical minerals is due to quadruple by 2040 to meet the requirements for clean energy technologies on our way towards net zero.
As my hon. Friend outlined, mining has always been closely interwoven with Cornish communities. It has been fantastic to witness the revival of Cornwall’s mining industries, which has restored Cornwall to its rightful place at the heart of the UK’s critical minerals strategy. He spoke at length about how Cornish Lithium and Imerys British Lithium are going from strength to strength. I associate myself with his comments, and I thank the companies for their endeavours.
In addition to lithium, Cornwall is also extracting tin. I had yet another opportunity to visit Cornish Metals at South Crofty in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I took great pleasure in showing the then Minister for Industry and Economic Security—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who has now picked up a brief in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—around the site. We met the company directors, who took her underground to update her on the progress that Cornish Metals has been making to restore that historic mine.
Cornwall is home to one of the top three tin sites in the world, and it is expected that South Crofty will be back online in 2026. I want to highlight a couple of the challenges facing our new and re-emerging mining companies that were raised when I visited South Crofty. The first relates to planning. South Crofty is on an existing site and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, although we had local buy-in, the planning process took about 12 years and cost more than £10 million; that is now completed. Given that Cornwall is an area sympathetic to mining infrastructure, surely we can simplify the process if we mean what we say about the minerals being critical.
The second challenge is the processing. My hon. Friend has spoken about lithium processing, but currently any tin extracted from Cornwall will need to be exported to the far east to be processed. In Europe, the energy costs are simply too high, and we must use carbon to melt the metal. The sites in Belgium and Poland are used only to recycle, so should we stand up our own processing in the UK, perhaps in south Wales or Humberside, next door to our existing steelworks?
Despite that, mining is not the dirty industry it once was. As champions of the industry, we have a duty to remind communities of the environmental benefits that a restoration of Cornwall’s mining industry will bring to our natural surroundings, our towns and our villages. It is not simply about high-skilled jobs for the future and opportunities for work. The Cornwall Lithium site at United Downs is producing geothermal energy, which is ready to power local houses and businesses. The water treatment plant at South Crofty is providing resources for the reopening of the mine that can also be used to clean the nearby Red River—no longer as red as it was—and protect local wildlife. That is a great example of the fact that when the Government give industry the breathing space to start in an emerging sector, the benefits to the economy, security and the environment are bountiful.
It is important that we place our discussions about the supply of critical minerals in a broader international context. I have worked closely with the Critical Minerals Association and its partners to get world leaders in the industry, and representatives of international bodies and Governments across the word, in the same room to have conversations and build the relationships that are needed now if we are ever to be in a position to grow the supply chain at pace to meet the growing global demand.
Last November, I hosted the first ever roundtable of producer nations, right here in Parliament. We brought together Ministers from Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Nigeria and Armenia for a discussion with Foreign Office Ministers about the future of our respective critical mineral supply chains. The event complemented the UK’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative roundtable, which I had hosted earlier in the year, where we discussed the corporate risk and the need to set out international expectations for the industry early on, to ensure transparency and ethical mining in the rush to meet demand.
I also attended another roundtable at the US ambassador’s residence. If I am totally honest, I was quite surprised to be invited, because it included representatives from the US Government as well as global industry CEOs. We were able to brainstorm on the cross-governmental challenges that like-minded nations face, in order to build resilience in the supply chain and meet global demand, thereby ensuring not just security but sustainability.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has made two significant points in a coherent speech. First, we will not be able to make use of natural resources in this country while our energy costs remain so high, and secondly, the planning regime that we operate in makes getting permission for the extraction of any minerals very difficult. Does she agree that deep in the Government, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, there is still a belief that we can rely on international trade to import critical minerals, whereas in actual fact China is behaving malevolently and trying to monopolise the trade?
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Gentleman is not wrong, in that global events are catching up with us. I think everybody in this Chamber knows that Whitehall moves at a glacial pace at the best of times, and current geopolitics has taught us that the Government need to be more agile. I think they are getting better at that and at getting Government Departments to work together. I mentioned that the Minister’s predecessor now has the equivalent brief in the Foreign Office and will therefore take her understanding with her. Government Departments are getting better at working together, but the hon. Gentleman made an incredibly important point.
Throughout all the events we have hosted this year I have been reassured by the Government’s determination and willingness to pitch in. The critical minerals strategy grapples with many of the industry’s original concerns, yet I also think most of us see it as an evolving document, as both our ambitions for the sector and the realities on the ground shift. What is true is that the strategy will ensure that the UK remains competitive as different nations grow their supply chains at varying rates, and it will also ensure that regions such as Cornwall, which have so much to offer, get the sustainable investment and job opportunities that we need.
Before I draw my speech to a close, I will discuss the local impact of improving the supply of critical minerals to my constituents in Truro and Falmouth, outlining the successes of the activity by the Government and the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals on the international stage, as well as the reassuring framework offered by the critical minerals strategy. I will also use this opportunity to mention alternative ways of boosting the supply of lithium, tin and other minerals through recycling.
The world-renowned Camborne School of Mines is now based at the University of Exeter in Penryn. It is highly respected around the world and I have met many of its graduates during my time as chair of the APPG. In February 2023, an additional £15 million was invested into research on strengthening the resilience of our critical minerals supply chain by recovering rare earth metals from products that had already been used. This work has huge potential. For example, it is estimated that by 2040 some 10% of copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt could be generated by recycling used batteries. When we are in a position of urgency, it makes perfect sense for us to maximise the minerals we have in products with limited lifespans, in order to alleviate the pressure on our mining industries and shore up our national security in the process.
Earlier this year, the Minister responsible for resources, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), announced that the University of Exeter, where the Camborne School of Mines is now based, would be a partner in the new United Nations-backed centre that will propel the transition to a future circular economy. The International Centre of Excellence on Sustainable Resource Management in the Circular Economy is the first such centre in the world. It will develop new approaches to the circular economy in areas such as metals, construction and critical minerals. I thank Ministers for taking the initiative on this front and putting investment into research early on, and I pay tribute to Professor Frances Wall at the Camborne School of Mines for leading the work.
Across the board, we have had big wins for the critical minerals industry in the UK, particularly in Cornwall. Our future security and economic growth rely on getting the next phase of increasing supply chain capability right for international demand, with balance to benefit our mining communities. However, it is quite easy for attention to shift to the next domestic policy interest of the moment, which is why I will continue to use every possible forum in this place to raise the topic. I am incredibly grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, for giving me the opportunity to do so today.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We now come to the speeches from the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Mr Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Gary. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing a debate on this important topic.
Although the concentration on lithium is entirely understandable, given the significance not just to Cornwall but to the broader economy of having a secure supply, critical raw materials go much wider. The minerals are economically important because they are needed to make batteries and semiconductors, which are vital for the transition to clean energy, as we have heard, but they are also at the greatest risk of supply chain disruption. The UK has 18 metals and minerals on its CRM list, and another six minerals are classed as having an elevated criticality because of where they come from. As is sometimes said in relation to the economy, if we cannot grow it, we have to mine it. That is very much where we are.
I offer some assurances to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who felt that Northern Ireland was somewhat left behind in this policy area. The British Geological Survey has compiled a report on where many of the critical minerals can be found, and there appear to be significant deposits of very many spread across the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone, so Northern Ireland can potentially play a role in meeting the demand for them.
Apart from Cornwall, about which we have heard, west Wales, Cumbria and the highlands of Scotland, as well as my own patch of Aberdeenshire, are also thought to be home to significant deposits. I can certainly testify to the interest in the issue: in September 2022, a helicopter that was seeking to detect critical minerals in Aberdeenshire managed to hit a pylon and black out 1,000 of my constituents’ electricity supplies for some time. That had some ramifications, but it brought it home to people that something out there was worth looking for, even if we hope that more care is taken in future.
Outside the UK, the 18 critical minerals are concentrated in particular geographical areas. For example, Brazil produces 98% of the global niobium reserve, the majority of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Russia has significant deposits of palladium. For the vast majority of critical minerals, many of the countries in which they are concentrated are autocratic, many are non-aligned, which is a matter for them, and with many we do not enjoy the best of diplomatic relations. Ensuring continuity of supply is therefore in many respects as much a geopolitical issue as a geological one.
The world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals as are being used today. The demand for lithium, particularly, is expected to surge by about 90% over the next two decades. Demand for nickel and cobalt is expected to rise by between 60% and 70%, and demand for copper and rare earth metals is expected to increase by 40%. To take one example that is most closely associated with the increased demand for CRMs, electric vehicles use 10 times more of those materials than conventional cars. Reaching net zero transport emissions by 2050 would require the sixfold increase of critical mineral extraction over the next 15 years.
It is estimated that stripping the earth’s natural resources in this way is causing about 60% of global heating impact, including land-use change, 40% of air pollution impact, and more than 90% of global water stress and land-related biodiversity loss. It is important that we go about extraction, whether domestically or internationally, with care. There are some important principles to keep in mind. We cannot afford for our approach to achieving domestic resilience and net zero to come at a similar or greater environmental cost than that which we are hoping to forestall. That is why we must ensure that the extraction of CRMs is done as sustainably as possible, wherever they happen to be extracted. That means transforming the extractive industries to minimise the social and environmental impact, which has to be part of the solution to moving towards net zero. A failure to do that will simply lead to stranded assets, perpetuating existing vulnerabilities and inequalities around the world. It will jeopardise the fight against climate change and threaten human wellbeing, ecosystems and economies for decades, if not centuries.
Successive UK Governments have perhaps to a certain extent sleepwalked to the position we are in now, which leaves the economy vulnerable to the sensitivities in supply. That was recognised in last December’s report by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which found that successive UK Governments had
“failed to recognise the importance of critical minerals”
in their strategies, and had
“failed to respond…to the aggressive capture of large parts”
of the global market over the last three decades—particularly by China—which has allowed a single country to dominate the UK’s critical minerals supply, leaving us with the consequent vulnerabilities in terms of economic resilience and security. China is the dominant player in the market—we should not ignore or be blind to that. Nor should we be blind to the fact that the Chinese state has not been slow to use that dominance against other states that it has found itself in dispute with.
What is to be done? Domestic CRM is largely unproven as yet. It could in many cases be years away from happening, even with a fair political wind and a benign planning approach. The USA and others are acting in this space. The USA is beginning to re-shore supply chains through the Inflation Reduction Act, and in 2020 the EU published its own action plan on critical raw materials, which is influencing its policy responses.
As well as extraction we need to look at how we can create a genuinely circular economy that can repurpose materials that have already been extracted. For example, the Scottish Government want to ban the sale and supply of single-use vapes in Scotland from April 2025. A single-use vape contains plastic, copper, cobalt and a lithium battery. The total amount of single-use vapes purchased every year contains enough lithium to provide the batteries for 5,000 electric vehicles. We should not allow the fact that they are very small products to disguise the adverse impact they can have not only on the environment after they are disposed of, but in terms of how their ingredients could be put to better use and secondary and tertiary use in future.
In conclusion, the UK has to urgently address dependency on China for its critical minerals. It must make itself more resilient to disruption in the CRM supply to avoid a situation in which the Government find themselves exposed economically or in terms of security. The UK needs to play catch-up with what our American and European partners have done to minimise their own exposure. We also need to work relentlessly to create circularity in our economy to make sure that the critical materials that we have already do not end up in landfill or not being used, so that they can be repurposed to minimise exposure and preserve the planet’s resources. There is only one planet. We need to do all we can to protect it and make the best use of its resources.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and a pleasure to follow all the contributors to what has been a thoughtful debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing the debate. I completely understand why he wanted to do so, and think I agree with everything he said in his speech. Although we have made some small progress, I agree that there is a silo mentality and it is disappointing that the Government are not as joined up as they should be on these issues. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the need for more focus on the midstream. I have heard that several times from people I have engaged with while I have been in this role.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the potential role, as we learned, of Northern Ireland. When I was in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, I met representatives of the chamber of commerce and visited businesses including Harland & Wolff, and their ambitions were very high. It was reassuring and encouraging to hear that everybody is pushing forward now that the Assembly is back up and running; it feels as though real progress is being made.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) about her role on the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. I have met the Critical Minerals Association and others and I understand what she is saying. I agree that mining is not always the dirty industry that it once was, but in some places, it is. Our role is to try to make sure that it is not a dirty industry and that, where we do it and where we supply and rely on others, it is being done properly. I agree that the Government need to be more agile in responding to some of the challenges that we face. The role of the extractive industries and how that works is an important part of the debate, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said.
I will add to some of the key arguments that have been made. If people are not familiar with the term “critical minerals”, it has an air of mystery about it, but there is nothing clandestine about the importance of critical minerals and how key they are to our modern society. I welcome the Minister to his new role. If he has not already read “Material World” by Ed Conway, I encourage him to do so, because it brings to life how important critical minerals are for us all.
The first thing that many of us do when we wake up in the morning is check our phone, which is powered by a lithium battery. We might spend the day working on a laptop; its chip is laced with tin. In the coming years, we will get more and more of our electricity from turbines that are powered as much by metals like cobalt as by the wind that turns their blades. If the Minister has not already been to the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre, I encourage him to go, so he can see how important critical minerals are in the production of batteries, which will be important for electric vehicle manufacturing in this country.
As has been said, the move to net zero is key. The International Energy Agency has predicted that demand for critical minerals could more than double by 2030. There are different figures—the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth said that it would quadruple—but we know that the need for critical minerals will increase significantly. It is therefore vital that we secure the supply of lithium and other critical minerals to this country.
Labour is clear that the green transition is our biggest economic opportunity. It is our chance to bring economic growth back to this country—the driving mission of a future Labour Government—along with hundreds of thousands of jobs everywhere, from Cornwall to Carlisle. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we are living in an age of insecurity. The vulnerabilities exposed by the pandemic, by rising geopolitical tensions, which have been mentioned, and by the changing climate have made it clear that a joined-up approach to the economy is vital for our nation’s security.
Many of the 18 minerals that the UK defines as “critical” are concentrated in specific geographic areas, the majority of which, as has been said, are not dependable allies of the UK. China is the biggest producer of 12 of the 18 minerals. That makes it clear that strategic, co-ordinated and effective steps to secure our supply of those minerals are vital. Critical action is needed, on which we believe that the Government have critically underdelivered.
Other countries are racing ahead, but the Conservatives still refuse on ideological grounds to have an industrial strategy, which leaves our approach to critical minerals disjointed and scattergun. Instead of showing decisive leadership, we risk seeing the UK sidelined in the global race for the industries of the future. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act has introduced benchmarks for domestic capabilities along critical mineral supply chains. The US Inflation Reduction Act, which has accelerated the race for critical mineral production there, is a powerful intervention that the Chancellor dismissed as a “distortive …subsidy race”.
We welcomed the Government’s critical minerals strategy when it was finally published, but some parts of their approach were frankly baffling. For example, why did they choose not to assess the vulnerabilities of the UK’s industrial supply chains while drawing it up? Why did the strategy contain no specific targets for priority sectors? Why was there no plan to expand midstream capacity for processing and refining in the UK, including in the critical minerals refresh published last year? As the Critical Minerals Association said, without developing the UK midstream, there is a risk that the UK Government will not be recognised as integral to global critical mineral supply chains.
The strategy should have been a vital document, but as others have mentioned, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded in a report that it is simply too broad to have real impact. That failure is deeply concerning, and it means that crucial investors in the critical minerals supply chain will look elsewhere. They will look to Europe, to countries such as Germany who are expected to have the largest battery manufacturing capacity on the continent by 2030. In comparison, the UK still has just one gigafactory that is actually operational.
The Government’s ad hoc approach has failed; the Conservatives have left Britain vulnerable, and Labour will take a new approach. Where this Government have proved themselves ideologically allergic to joined-up thinking, Labour knows that a real industrial strategy is the only adequate response to our age of insecurity. Building a resilient economy will be a core principle of our approach, which is why our industrial strategy provides for a new supply chains taskforce to analyse the potential supply chain needs across critical sectors, to review the vulnerability of critical supply chains to extreme risks and to assess the potential requirements of responding to those shocks.
That industrial strategy will work hand in glove with Labour’s green prosperity plan, built on the principle of using catalytic public investment to secure investment from the private sector—a principle that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay may be able to attest to the power of. Labour will make strategic public investments to develop and support critical supply chains here in Britain. Our national wealth fund will invest £1.5 billion in new gigafactories and aim to draw in three times as much from the private sector. Boosting Britain’s automotive industry at the one end and the critical minerals supply chain at the other, the new gigafactories will help to put Britain back on a competitive international footing and to secure Britain’s place in the international supply of those key materials.
When it comes to critical minerals, it is vital to look way beyond our borders, which is why a Labour Government would ensure that our trade policy works in step with our domestic plans. That is why we need to work with our friends and allies on secure and resilient supply chains, aligning capacities in key sectors with our wider security relationships. I was at a roundtable recently with the Critical Minerals Association and many others, including representatives from Australia and Canada, and we were talking about how the Foreign Office works in terms of its relationships and priorities. It is clear that the need for critical minerals needs to be stamped on what is done by the Foreign Office, as well as by other Departments. We need to make sure that we are building relationships with our allies from whom we will need to source materials in the future. We should also use our international position to boost standards, which, when it comes to critical minerals, have too often been sorely lacking.
Securing the supply of new critical minerals is crucial, but it is also vital to consider how we make the most of the materials that already surround us. I did not know that there is an estimated average of 20 unused electronic items in every household across the UK. We have to not make a mockery of recycling, as our Prime Minister has, but see it in its rightful place in helping to secure the circular economy, with buy-in from devolved Administrations across the UK. That is a real priority in moving towards a sustainable future.
Getting this right is vital, so I hope that the Minister can answer a few questions before the end of the debate. What is the Government’s plan to support the development of midstream critical mineral capacity in the UK? How do the Government plan to support the move to a circular economy to reduce our demand for new minerals? How is his Department working with the Foreign Office to engage with our allies so that we can secure our critical mineral supply and boost international standards? In the Government’s response to the task and finish group, they said that they would consider new supportive proposals. Have the Government done that yet? Securing our supply of lithium and other critical minerals needs leadership—leadership that the Government have so far failed to deliver. We risk letting the UK fall behind in securing our supply of critical minerals. Labour will put the UK back in the race.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Alan Mak)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate. He is a long-standing advocate for his home county of Cornwall and for the UK’s minerals industry. He has spoken powerfully about the importance of critical minerals to our economy and the role that Imerys, British Lithium and Cornish Lithium play in his community. He told us that he established the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. He is too modest to say this, but he is the driving force behind all those Hansard mentions of critical minerals, and I congratulate him on that. He speaks with great authority on the subject and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss it today.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for their contributions to this debate, and I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for her kind words of welcome as I take up this post. I also wish to recognise the work of my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). As we have heard, she worked extensively on this issue, and I know that she will continue to support it in her new role in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
My predecessor recently visited three key mining projects in Cornwall, including two lithium mines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. Since I started this role four weeks ago, I have spoken to several UK mining companies, including Cornish Lithium and Johnson Matthey, with Pensana to come. I look forward to seeing for myself more growth-spurring, job-creating projects in the future, and I look forward to visiting Cornwall as soon as I can.
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, we are moving to a world powered by critical minerals. As we heard, we need lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite to make batteries for electric cars; silicon and tin for our electronics; and rare earth elements for electric cars and wind turbines. These critical minerals are characterised by having the highest levels of economic importance and the highest levels of supply risk. We know that they will become even more important over time as we seek to bolster our energy security and domestic industrial resilience, while pursuing cleaner, green forms of energy production. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth indicated, the world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals for clean energy technologies as it did in 2020. However, we know that critical mineral supply chains are complex and vulnerable to disruption.
Traditionally, production is highly concentrated in certain countries. For example, China refines close to three quarters of the world’s lithium carbonate for batteries and around 90% of the world’s rare earth metals. State intervention in these markets is high. Supply chains are often fraught with environmental, social and governance issues and the market does not fully differentiate products on their ESG credentials.
All these issues present challenges to the UK’s security of supply, because UK industries and jobs, our energy infrastructure and our defence capabilities all rely on minerals that are vulnerable to market shocks, geopolitical events and logistical disruptions, at a time when global demand for these minerals is rising faster than ever. The Government’s view is that it is imperative for us to make our supply chains more resilient and more diverse. We need to support British industry now and in the future. That work is inextricably linked to both our energy security and our national security. For all these reasons, this Government have acted decisively to ensure that we have resilient domestic supply chains that give our businesses the long-term certainty they need.
As my hon. Friend said today, back in July 2022, we published our first ever critical minerals strategy, setting out our approach to improving the resilience of critical mineral supply chains. Above anything, it is a strategy that recognises that critical minerals are a multifaceted issue. It provides an overarching framework for accelerating our domestic capabilities, promotes closer collaboration with international partners and seeks to enhance international markets.
We always said that we would need to monitor global events and recalibrate our approach as necessary. That is one of the reasons we published the critical minerals refresh in March last year, reflecting the changing global landscape, highlighting progress to date and setting out our approach to delivering the strategy for UK businesses. Working closely with industry, we are already making good progress with the strategy, which I will say more about later, but we recognise that there is more to do.
I reassure my hon. Friend and all Members that we take a comprehensive and strategic cross-Government approach to critical minerals. While the Department for Business and Trade leads on critical minerals strategy, the delivery and evolution of the strategy and many of the policy levers lie outside my Department, and therefore we co-operate with Departments across Whitehall. I also reassure him that officials from my Department engage closely and regularly with officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero where necessary.
It is also important to note that we support UK industries, especially those that depend on a steady flow of critical minerals, to seek resilience and diversity in their own supply chains. That is why last year we launched the independent task and finish group on industry resilience for critical minerals—a first-of-its-kind initiative for industry-Government engagement on critical minerals supply risks. The task and finish group has raised the importance of critical minerals with key industrial sectors, helping them to manage the risks in their supply chains. It has also given us insights about the UK’s dependencies and vulnerabilities, and published a report containing a series of recommendations on how to best guide the delivery of our strategy. The Government warmly welcome the group’s report and our full response to those recommendations was published last month. I encourage Members to read that report if they have not already.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay will be aware, the Government launched the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre in 2022, in partnership with the British Geological Survey, to monitor risks in supply chains and assess just how critical different minerals will be over time. Their first assessment identified 18 critical minerals, including lithium, rare earths, tungsten and tin, and an update is due by the end of this year.
These are vital efforts but we know that our work is not yet done. That is why we continue to work with industries across the board to support resilience and diversification in their supply chains. We re-emphasised that commitment in our critical imports and supply chains strategy, published by my Department at the beginning of this year. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Critical Imports Council is a key part of that work. I was proud to chair its inaugural meeting earlier this month and I welcome that the Critical Minerals Association and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining are key parts of it. I look forward to working with them, as I know my hon. Friend does.
Here at home, we are supporting UK critical minerals producers to take advantage of the opportunities right along the value chain, including in Cornwall. While we will always rely on international supply chains, we have to maximise what the UK can produce domestically; my hon. Friend made the case for that powerfully. We need to make sure this is done where it is viable for businesses, and where it works for communities and our natural environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth rightly mentioned. I agree with her that the UK is perfectly placed to lead on midstream processing, including refining and materials manufacturing, building on its globally competitive chemicals and metals sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay is absolutely right that we have the capabilities to mine or refine enough lithium in the UK to satisfy more than our demands by 2030, but that is not true of all critical minerals. We have more than 50 projects at various stages of development to mine, process and recycle critical minerals domestically, and we want every one of those to be set up for success. That is why, to accelerate the growth of our domestic capabilities, the Government are investing big in critical minerals programmes. Our automated transformation fund, for example, is supporting projects in automotive supply chains, such as British Lithium, Green Lithium and Pensana. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will know, the UK Infrastructure Bank has invested over £24 million in Cornish Lithium. I was pleased to meet both the chief executive and the chief financial officer of that company in my second week in this role, which I hope underlines the importance of that company and his county to me and the strategy. They are part of a growing ecosystem, which includes gigafactory footprints that are getting bigger by the week.
At the same time, the Government are taking decisive steps to reduce the price of energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, to ensure competitiveness with other major economies across Europe, including through the British industry supercharger, which she will know comprises a series of targeted measures to bring energy costs for key industries into line with our major competitors.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay knows, the UK is also a pioneer in recovering critical minerals from waste, and we are ensuring that we stay ahead of the pack through Innovate UK’s circular critical materials supply chains programme to build and develop resilient supply chains. We are also exploring regulatory mechanisms to promote battery, waste-electricals and equipment recycling, which is an opportunity for this country.
The Government have a clear vision for the role the UK can play in critical minerals supply chains and we are throwing our full support behind business to harness and grow our competitive advantage, but we know that Britain cannot go it alone on critical minerals. International collaboration is key to building more resilient, diversified and responsible supply chains both here and around the world. The UK therefore has a role to play as an international deal maker, leveraging our extensive multilateral engagement and our strong relationships with mineral-rich producer countries and consumer markets.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I asked what could be done to increase technological advances in Northern Ireland, so that we can be a part of the great progress as we move forward. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), the spokesperson for the SNP, referred to some lithium deposits in Fermanagh and Tyrone, so there are possibilities—although that was not originally known, so I am very interested to find out about that. Will the Minister have discussions with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can be part of this great vision for the future of the United Kingdom?
Alan Mak
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come shortly to the possibilities for Northern Ireland, and I will certainly cover the point that he makes. As ever, he is a great champion for Strangford and for Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, and I very much welcome his contribution to this debate on the topic of how we can co-operate, both among the home nations of the United Kingdom and with our international partners.
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are making real progress when it comes to co-operation with our international partners. For example, we have agreed bilateral partnerships on critical minerals with Australia, Canada, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Zambia and Japan, with more to follow. The UK has also been represented at major multilateral forums, including the Minerals Security Partnership, which I attended in my second week in this role, and we are involved in the International Energy Agency, the G7 and other such forums. All this work means that we are collaborating closely with our partners to improve the resilience and security of the critical minerals supply chain.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked about the EU dimension, and I want to reassure him that the opinion on EU regulation is owned by the Health and Safety Executive, which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions. I will be very happy, if he would like me to, to assist him in following up with the HSE and the DWP to find answers to his queries, while respecting the scientific independence of those organisations.
That brings me to the question of Northern Ireland. I want to let the hon. Member for Strangford know that I will be visiting Northern Ireland before the summer recess—hopefully in the coming weeks—and I am looking forward to meeting my counterparts and exploring the opportunities for the UK Government to support businesses in Northern Ireland. I will certainly make lithium and minerals part of the agenda, and I look forward to any support he can give me in making sure that we cover those topics. Northern Ireland is a crucial part of the United Kingdom, its economy is thriving, and I want to ensure that we seize any opportunities we find there. I also say to the hon. Member for Gordon that, when I am next in Scotland, I will do the same there. I thank him for raising the possibilities north of the border.
A core element of our international engagement, beyond the multilateral partnerships I have mentioned, is helping like-minded resource-rich countries to develop critical minerals resources in a market-led way that aligns with our shared sustainability, transparency, human rights and environmental values—I am glad that they were mentioned in the debate. That is how the Government are ensuring that the UK is leading the way on critical minerals, driving up industry resilience, ramping up domestic production, and fostering closer international collaboration on the world stage.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for securing the debate. I am grateful for the work that he and other hon. Members across the House do in supporting us in the mission to ensure that our critical minerals supply chains are strong, sustainable and resilient now and for many years to come.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I call Steve Double to have the final say.
Steve Double
Thank you, Sir Gary, and I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I think we are all pretty unanimous on the importance of this subject to the UK and our future. I understand that for some people it is not the most interesting subject in the world, but it is so important and I intend to keep raising it.
I acknowledge much of what the Minister said. I am delighted to see him in his place and to hear the commitments he made. I will take him up on his offer to work with the DWP to get an answer from the HSE on the matter I raised, and I am grateful to him for that.
It is clear that we will always need to rely on global supply chains to some extent for some of our critical minerals, but I think we are all agreed that we need to make the most of our domestic supply as much as we possibly can, for all the reasons that we have covered in the debate. That is why, in Cornwall, we are genuinely excited about the opportunity for lithium extraction and determined to work to make the absolute most of it, for the benefit of both the Cornish economy and the UK as a whole. I am delighted that the Minister has offered to come and visit, and I look forward to welcoming him so that he can see for himself all that is going on in Cornwall to revive our mining history and point the way to a prosperous future in that regard.
I will conclude by thanking again all the Members who participated in the debate. I hope that we have laid down some markers that we will continue to raise and work on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the supply of lithium and other critical minerals.
Transport Infrastructure: Devon and Somerset
(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered roads and other transport infrastructure in Devon and Somerset.
May I say how nice it is to serve under a Devon MP of great standing and long service, who knows his county better than most of us? I am delighted to be able to make this speech.
When talking about our constituents in Westminster Hall, it is rare that we are able to talk cross border. The Tiverton and Minehead seat, as you now know, Mr Streeter, is new and will cross the boundary of Devon and Somerset. This is a good chance for us to discuss my memories from my days as the Member for Torridge and West Devon before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—we were talking about potholes then, and that was 1997.
When digging around on Google and many of these other things—which I confess not to completely understand —I discovered just how contentiously difficult potholes are. I did not know, but pothole sizes and potholes in the road have names. I know this sounds interesting, so I will read some of them out: The Canyon—I think we can work that one out; The Alligator, a little more tricky; The Sniper; The Slalom; and The Alcatraz. There are many more named on a website. On discovering a pothole, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), when he is up in Hexham, can look it up and say, “Ah! There’s an Alligator,” or, “There is Alcatraz”—up in Northumberland, that is the wall.
It is intriguing: this has become a sort of national sport. In Devon, there is a Facebook page called “Devon Potholes”. It is fascinating how incensed people are by something that should really be simple to solve. Recently, in Watchet, which is in the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency as it currently is, a little bit of private road had not been done up—because it was private—and the Daily Mail actually filled in the potholes to help a 101-year-old get in and out of their house. That is the national view of potholes.
I will give some of these ghastly statistics—which is what we all live by in this place—taking Devon first. In 2019, there were around 50,000 reported potholes, of which they claim to have repaired 50,000—I find that convenient, like all local government statistics. In 2022, there were 34,000—so there has been a reduction—of which they claim to have repaired 32,150. Okay, I hear what they say: given that we drive around the roads of Devon, I dare say this is possibly not as straightforward as it may seem.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I get out and about speaking to people across my part of Devon every single week, and our roads are a constant concern and grumble on the doorstep. We all know that MPs across the region have consistently campaigned for more funding to resurface and repair our roads—this is not just about potholes; it is also about resurfacing. By redirecting funds from the spiralling—and, to be fair, deeply questionable —cost of HS2, the Government have delivered millions of pounds for our county to speed up pothole repairs, but thanks to the Government boosting its budget, Devon County Council will invest an extra £10 million this financial year into our roads, taking the highway maintenance budget to over £72 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that Devon County Council is right to spend whatever it takes to get our roads back to the standard we expect?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend has championed Devon for longer than I have had the opportunity to do so, and I greatly welcome his gentle advice about the situation on the roads. I am very grateful for the work he has done. I know he has worked very hard with the leader of Devon to make sure we secured the money—I say “we”, and that is a very grand collective “we”. I know that you, Mr Streeter, were involved in that. It is a very good piece of news indeed, and I am grateful to Devon —£72 million is a huge amount.
That just shows, however, that it has become endemic that we never have enough money to do this. Although the claims are there, the reality, which I know from driving around Devon—I certainly know it from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp)—is that this is a never-ending battle, and one that we all must fight. Funnily enough, I do not blame either Somerset or Devon for the situation we are in. This has gone on for so long that it has become almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have aspirations all the time—
Sarah Dyke
That is very generous of the hon. Member for—somewhere in Somerset.
Adverse weather has also massively contributed to the number of potholes in Somerset, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will come on to. Does he agree that the Government must recognise and focus on improving the future resilience of our roads, and that local authorities may need specific funding allocations to improve the resilience of roads, rather than just pothole funding? I will leave him to the remainder of his prepared speech.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I will just reiterate again what I have already said about the number of potholes in Somerset, because obviously the hon. Lady was not listening—but never mind; no change there. I just reiterate for the record that there were 60,000 potholes in 2022.
I have worked with the leader of Somerset county now for 25 years, who covers a major part of the Levels, where we know the roads move all the time because of the peat. It has been a never-ending battle in Somerset to try to stabilise roads that are unstable. The cost of rebuilding those roads after the ’14 floods was simply astronomical, but we cannot not do it. As peat is a natural resource, we cannot pile—we cannot get deep enough—so whatever we do is a problem. Somerset county has spent hugely on roads over many years. I am not complaining; that is the situation. I am saying that the money has to keep going. Unfortunately, as I said, it does not really work.
I was interested to note that on the Devon county website—my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon helped me on this—there is a quite incredible interactive map. I did not know this existed—I know that you will, Sir Gary—but people can actually look up the potholes on their street. If they go to fixmystreet.com, they can look at these maps, find out exactly where their pothole is, and anybody can report it. We can then zone in the counties. Somerset does not have that. I looked at the Somerset website—which has been there for years, by the look of it—which starts off with a highway safety inspection manual. It always worries me when I get that, on any website, because I just know that whatever is behind it will be a worry. I accept that there is a system behind it, but it is not as good as the one I have seen in Devon. I will be urging Somerset county to adopt that system.
I know that the Minister will reply, quite rightly: “We can give what we can give. There is no more.” One of the ways around this is to use technology. I was googling some quite remarkable machines that fill in potholes. They can do the middle, so they can deal with all the pothole types I named earlier—they basically gouge out and redo it. Last night, the Minister was very kindly telling me a little bit about some of these machines. On his recommendation, I actually went away and looked them up, and they are amazing. Maybe—just maybe—Devon, Somerset and Cornwall, for instance, could look at buying some machines together as a collective, and they could then work the three counties. It does not have to be three counties; it could be whatever we want—it could be a region if we so wish, although that would be a bit big. We could use that technology to deal with these holes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Guy Opperman
I wanted to try to assist my hon. Friend, because he is referring to two key things. First, by reason of the HS2 funding, for the very first time, local authorities up and down the country—but particularly Devon and Somerset—are being given seven-year funding. They have a certainty of supply of funding, which allows them to purchase new equipment and machinery. He is referring, of course, to the Pothole Pro—there are other products out there. The key, transformational point is that, by reason of the Prime Minister’s decision on HS2 in October last year, not only is there an uplift in funding, but all local authorities are now able to plan properly and purchase equipment, so that road maintenance also means upgrade, rather just filling potholes.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister, as always. He is right, and I was going to come on to HS2. I know that he sympathises with this, because he has a huge rural constituency, bigger than any in Devon. The road system up there is challenging, as I know—I used to live in it—not least because he has got the military running all over a part of his constituency.
The Minister is right: we have got to embrace that money. If nothing else, the message I give today to all colleagues is that Devon, Somerset and other counties need to get together, to start buying very expensive but very clever machines. There are ways to do that, and the Minister is right that the Prime Minister has led the way with this windfall, thank the Lord. It is marvellous to have it, and we should use every penny we can.
There is no secret that in Somerset we have a financial crisis. It is very difficult at the moment. We have managed to get through this year—we are fine—but next year is not looking so good. We have a lot of work to do, and if we do not do the work on roads, they just get worse. Then more money is required, and it a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to help places that do not have the money—the same goes for Buckinghamshire and other counties that have the same problem. Devon is not in the same position, as my hon. Friend has already said—the county has been extremely generous and has got extra money out of its own resources, as we are all aware, which is tremendous—but we do need a better system.
One thing that has always struck me is that it is up to us—not just MPs, but county councillors—to ensure we work to try to resolve this. All of us walk or drive round our areas. How many times have we been down potholes? I quite often end up in hedgerows with punctures—as you can well imagine, Mr Streeter, knowing that my driving does not bear much scrutiny. It is infuriating but, if we do not say where the potholes are, we cause a problem for ourselves.
One of the biggest problems we all face is the size of tractors, which has increased enormously since we were young, dare I say. Tractors are now lane-filling. Devon and Somerset roads were never designed for that size of tractors, big lorries or some big cars. The weight of tractors has gone through the roof. What they now haul is hugely heavier than it used to be. That is one of the biggest problems we face, because they cause more and more damage. As one drives around both counties, it is the structure of the sides of the roads that is causing the problems. We have to be much more aware that farming damages roads, but there is nothing we can do about it. The farmers have every right to be there and need to be, but we need to cover that up.
This is my last point before I sit down and give way to the Minister, who I know has a lot to say on this. I am really disappointed about certain parts of Devon, which I am beginning to learn about, and especially Mid Devon District Council, which I find iniquitous. It should be scrutinising this, as should everyone else. I know it happens in Somerset and Devon counties. We would not have got the money if it had not. That is the point: they should scrutinise. To learn that the head of scrutiny has now legged it because it all got a bit tough and hard is pathetic. We need proper scrutiny.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
In a minute.
I find it ridiculous that we cannot get this sorted. That is a ridiculous position for us to find ourselves in. Some people need to start thinking about what they are there for. MPs have a responsibility, which can be seen every day in newspapers, and we know what we suffer. I just wish a few of the councillors who are meant to represent their areas would do the same.
Richard Foord
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and commend him for securing this debate. Devon County Council is the local authority responsible for roads in Devon and the leader of Devon County Council, John Hart, said last year:
“They gave us £9.5 million and I hate to say it but £7 million of that went in inflation”.
He also said of that £9.5 million that it
“is a drop in the ocean.”
Does the hon. Member agree that the county council is responsible for roads and that the potholes we see are ultimately the responsibility of central Government?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I can see why the hon. Member was in the education corps. Where does one start? I think I will start with a sigh. That is better; I now feel fresh to go on.
John Hart, who I knew nearly 30 years ago, has led a council and has made massive differences. He has just announced that he will stand down after a very long period and I respect that. He has made £10 million available. He has taken his responsibility for roads in Devon deadly seriously. His achievement is remarkable, given that Devon has more roads than Belgium—am I right, Mr Streeter? I think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon has made it quite clear that Devon has stepped up to the mark.
As for the hon. Member for the education corps—God help us!—scrutiny should be scrutiny. You can scrutinise anything you want—that is the point. I have always found that the best way to scrutinise is to take scrutiny down to a local level, because we live with those potholes in our areas. We live with them, not just as MPs, but as constituents and members of district councils. I therefore find the hon. Gentleman’s question iniquitously ridiculous.
On that happy note, Mr Streeter, I sit down. Thank you.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Obviously, I accept and acknowledge that, when you have served your constituents in the south-west for so long, you will be exceptionally interested in a debate such as this one, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). I also genuinely acknowledge the passion and the fervour that my hon. Friend has brought, as always, to this particular issue. I commend him for the tone of his speech and for the fact that he is sticking up for his constituents, as he has done so very well for many a year.
This issue is clearly something that we all care about. There is no doubt whatsoever that all our constituents are passionately concerned about the state of the roads that they have to utilise, whether that is as a driver, as a farmer, as someone who does logistics and deliveries as part of a business, or as someone trying to engage regularly in active travel. All those activities are affected by the state of our roads and we are all conscious of that.
One must look at the consequential decisions that the Government have made over the last year in particular to address some of those problems, because if I look back at the situation approximately 16 or 18 months ago and compare it with the situation now, I see that it has been utterly transformed. That has happened in three ways. The core base budget that both local authorities had was substantial and had been going up periodically, but there is no doubt that it was a struggle; we all acknowledge that. To a lesser or greater degree, that is true of different local authorities up and down the country.
Clearly, the first thing that happened was the spring Budget of 2023, which saw a significant uplift to both local authorities: just under £5 million to Somerset and £9 million to Devon. Subsequently, the decision of the Prime Minister in October 2023 in relation to HS2 utterly transformed the funding increase, because there is a base increase of funding ultimately of 30% in the case of both local authorities. That is transformational funding—there is no question whatsoever about that.
Richard Foord
The Minister refers to “transformational funding”, but I think that expression would jar with the experience of constituents in Devon who I talk to. In total, 966 claims were made for compensation by Devon residents, amounting to £1.1 million, between April and December last year. Would he like to comment on this disjuncture between, on the one hand, the “transformational” change that he talks about and, on the other hand, the day-to-day experience of my constituents?
Guy Opperman
I have answered such questions repeatedly since the debate on 19 December and at other times. Simply put, the situation is this: if one has a business or statutory undertaking, and one increases the budget to address a problem by over 30%, there is no other part of the Government infrastructure that has been increased in that way. There is no local authority in the country that has had the benefit of that in other parts of its portfolio. The reality is that the transport budget for highways maintenance has been dramatically addressed. No one is diminishing the impact of what has happened in the past and the day-to-day vicissitudes that people have to face, whether those are on the Somerset levels or the Slapton line, which I debated in the House barely a month ago. There are clearly instances where those things need to be addressed, and frankly the Prime Minister has taken a very bold decision to address the problem specifically, which is massively to his credit.
Obviously, that is on top of record amounts of bus funding. There has been a significant increase in bus funding, such as the £2 bus fare, the bus service improvement plans money and the active travel budget, which has seen considerable enhancements to Devon of over £6 million and to Somerset of over £3 million since 2020. There is massively increased support for all forms of cycling and walking. Also, the rail station infrastructure has increased, whether that is in Cullompton—which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have visited—or elsewhere. A huge amount of investment is going on.
Guy Opperman
No, I will not, with no disrespect. I am going to try to address some of the many points that have been made. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset went on for quite a while. Obviously, it was all worthwhile listening, but it was certainly well beyond the 15 minutes.
The reality is that Devon and Somerset received a further funding uplift of approximately £15 million in the spring Budget of 2023, and then £10 million of additional maintenance funding in 2023-24. The point I was trying to make to my hon. Friend is that anyone who has ever worked as a parish, district or county councillor, as a Member of Parliament, or who has run a Department knows that having a long-term, seven-year budget is transformational. Any local authority leader will ask, “Could I have some more money and could I know what I am going to get over the next two to seven years?” That is transformational, that is exactly what the PM has done, and that is why local authorities can do different types of investment.
I make the significant point that we hold local authorities to account. There are two ways to address the point about accountability that my hon. Friend raised. First, many local authorities—I cannot comment on individual specifics—subcontract a lot of work to particular providers. Some are better than others, and I cast no aspersions. We now require local authorities to publish a plan every year, in which they have to set out what they intend to do with that money and where they intend to spend it.
We encourage the local authorities to do two things. First, they should look at the quality of the work. There is clearly a necessity on some occasions to do patching. No one disputes that; it must happen from time to time. However, we want better quality work, because the better quality work does not need repeat work.
Secondly, local authorities need to look after the road maintenance system itself, which involves ensuring that they have a sufficiency of gully suckers clearing the road and ensuring there is no water, so that they can deal with the winter weather in the usual way. We want them to check the quality of subcontractors so that the work follows the local authority guidance on how it should be done and can be checked. Personally, I would strongly encourage them to get into arrangements with their subcontractors if the work fails within a three-month, six-month or nine-month period. In our constituencies up and down the country, we have all come across the odd occasion where a pothole is filled and has to be refilled very quickly thereafter. It is for local authorities to hold their contractors to account, or if they are doing the work in-house, they need to be held to account as well. This transformation clearly relates and dates back to the core funding and the highways maintenance funding.
I am happy to say that both Devon and Somerset councils have published their plans, which my hon. Friend will want to look at. They allow all hon. Members’ constituents to see for themselves which roads will be resurfaced. In Somerset, the A37 Whitstone Road in Shepton Mallet and the A39 Puriton Hill in Bawdrip have already benefitted from the additional funding, as have the A358 Cross Keys roundabout in Norton Fitzwarren and the B3090 Marston Road in Selwood. In Devon, roads from Axminster to Yarcombe and from Ashburton to Widworthy will be resurfaced. All of that is because of the new money coming in.
The funding formula recognises that and allocates funding to local authorities based on road length. We acknowledge the particular circumstances in Devon, and I have set out in this House how it receives effectively more money than virtually any other local authority because of road length and its nature. Although my constituency is bigger, Devon’s circumstances are well known and well understood.
I will briefly deal with road enhancement. The Department has worked with Western Gateway, Peninsula Transport and the sub-national transport bodies to identify priorities for investment from our major road network and large local majors programmes. That has seen over £330 million of investment, subject to the Government approving the individual business cases from local councils. Obviously there is an outlined business case and a final business case.
Included are improvements to the A361 North Devon link road, the A382 between Drumbridges and Newton Abbot, the A379 bridge road in Exeter and the A38 in North Somerset. As I understand it, good progress is being made in the construction of improvements to the North Devon link road, and I look forward to its completion later this year. I could go on at great length about the substantial infrastructure investment in rail in this part of the world—and I see that the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), has snuck into the room to laud and applaud the massive investment that has been made in rail.
Massive investment has also been made in the bus and public transport network, and we have made further investment in active travel. I look forward to developments in all those.
I welcome this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset introduced, and I welcome his enthusiasm in holding local authorities to account and ensuring that the taxpayer, who we all serve, will get the best outcome. That outcome will be a massive increase in investment, much better roads, a long-term plan for local authorities and better outcomes for all. That is something we should all strive for.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of Rail Manufacturing
(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union and chair of the Unite parliamentary group. I am also a member of the RMT and ASLEF parliamentary groups and I am on the Transport Committee.
For several years, industry organisations such as the Railway Industry Association, trade unions and manufacturers have urged timely action to prevent significant job losses in rail manufacturing here in the UK. The industry employs over 30,000 people in the United Kingdom and contributes at least £1.8 billion annually in gross value added. It is currently facing a very dangerous—indeed, critical—situation. The Minister, a former Chair of the Transport Committee, is very familiar with the situation. I have engaged with him on a number of occasions recently and in the Select Committee, so I am fully aware that he understands the nature of the problem.
In December last year, I raised an urgent question following evidence given to the Transport Committee by Nick Crossfield, the managing director of Alstom—Alstom is based in Derby. He impressed on the Committee the need for urgent action from the Government to expedite the bidding process for new British-manufactured trains. Four months later, it is clear that the Government have been too slow to prevent potential job losses at the Derby train manufacturer.
Similarly, I met workers at the Hitachi train manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, next door to my constituency, who are also members of Unite the Union. They warned that we could see redundancies as early as June this year if the Government continue to drag their heels on extending the contract to build further trains for the west coast main line.
British railways are rooted in the north-east of England. The Stockton and Darlington railway was inaugurated in 1825 and was the world’s first passenger railway. It also linked the coalmines near Shildon in County Durham to the River Tees at Stockton, facilitating coal exports from Teesport. The Stockton and Darlington railway’s success, alongside growing demand for transport, spurred the development of a national railway network. The railways transformed Britain, enabling all social classes to travel further, and the network was developed to move coal from thriving collieries in County Durham to global markets. However, County Durham continues to struggle with the legacy of the loss of its coal industry, with limited skilled employment due to insufficient investment in levelling-up efforts, alongside a lack of a coherent industrial strategy under successive Conservative Governments.
In 2015, Hitachi opened a plant in County Durham, bringing skilled jobs to the region and reviving the north-east’s rail manufacturing tradition after 90 years. The 750 skilled jobs at Hitachi, and about 1,500 jobs in the supply chain, are fundamental to the success of the local economy.
Today, the excellent Sheffield Hallam University has released its “State of the Coalfields 2024” report, which shows evidence of a lack of jobs and businesses in the former coalfields despite recent growth. Job density in former coalfields is only 57 employee jobs per 100 working-age residents; that compares with a national average of 73 jobs per 100 residents, and an average in major regional cities of 88 jobs per 100 residents. There is a disparity, and a long way to go.
The report from Sheffield Hallam illustrates, as clear as day, the ongoing struggle for prosperity in former coalfield communities.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just the number of jobs that Hitachi has brought to the region but the improvement in the skill base? Hitachi is training apprentices and increasing the skill base locally through investments in higher education and other things. That helps not only Hitachi but the regional economy.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the broader benefits to the economy. Indeed, the loss of rail manufacturing in County Durham or Derbyshire would devastate their respective regional economies and threaten British rail manufacturing.
Alstom, Hitachi, Siemens and CAF—Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles—remain the only train manufacturers in the UK. A similar situation arose with the steel industry. To a reasonable person, it would seem illogical for the Government to permit the UK to lose its capacity to build trains, especially as our existing network is in need of modernisation.
The Minister and I have fenced about the age of the rolling stock and trains, but the UK still operates trains built before privatisation, with the average age of trains on the Chiltern line estimated to be 30 years; that was in March last year, from the Office of Rail and Road report. Additionally, nearly half all operators use trains over 22 years old. The Railway Industry Association has urged the Government to upgrade or replace approximately 2,600 vehicles by 2030, and to renew around 1,650 diesel trains that will be 35 years old after 2030.
The industry-wide consensus is that our rolling stock is outdated and inefficient. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why are the Government not protecting British rail manufacturing, especially given the rising demand for new trains to enhance the passenger experience and to meet our net zero targets? In relation to our environmental targets, all 2,898 diesel and 912 bi-mode trains in the UK emit carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, with nitrous oxide—N2O—having various health impacts and being up to 280 times more potent than CO2 in warming the planet over a 20-year period. That is according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the United Nations.
To achieve net zero by 2050, a solution must be found to replace diesel trains, which are currently used by 14 operators—especially since only 38% of the network is currently electrified. My constituents, who travel on unreliable, second-hand ScotRail Sprinter trains—no offence to my friend from Scotland, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—built in the 1980s, find it inconceivable that the rolling stock companies’ profits are sky high while our UK-based rail manufacturers are crying out for orders. Taxpayers are forced to travel on substandard trains purchased with Government funds, while subsidies remain at twice pre-pandemic levels. The system is inefficient and does not serve the taxpayer or the travelling public.
There are needless links in the chain. The Government should streamline the system by directly purchasing trains and bypassing the ROSCOs or rolling stock companies. Indeed, RMT president Alex Gordon and general secretary Mick Lynch have been vociferous, voicing concerns about leasing costs, which have risen by over 30% over the past five years while rail industry staff costs have remained static.
A decade ago, leasing rolling stock accounted for about 13% of train operating companies’ costs; today, it accounts for 25% or a quarter. Does the Minister think that is fair or are the Government protecting profits when other areas of the network, including the staffing elements, are facing dramatic cuts?
Clearly, there is something wrong with how we procure rolling stock in Britain. Despite needing modern, carbon-neutral and sustainable trains, the Government have ignored warnings from both Alstom and Hitachi. The Rail Industry Association warned the Government that recent administrations have been a “canary in the coalmine” before the potential decimation of train manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Unite the Union warns that the industry’s performance relies heavily on Alstom Transport and Hitachi Rail, which hold 55.3% of market share.
The industry’s fate is dependent on key players like Hitachi and Alstom. However, recent forecasts indicate a bleak outlook, with revenues projected to decline at a rate of 8.1% annually over the next five years. Hitachi and Alstom face challenges, as their order books require clearing past orders before they can commence construction and setting up production lines for the HS2 trains, which are currently 18 to 24 months behind schedule.
Government intervention must go beyond rhetoric to provide tangible support to the industry. We are not asking for a bail-out—just a commitment to honouring existing contracts, and to establish a sensible industrial strategy for the industry. Beyond extending existing contracts, a focused industrial strategy is imperative. Research conducted by Make UK reveals that 99% of manufacturers support the need for an industrial strategy. Six in 10 cite the lack of an industrial strategy as a factor affecting growth in the manufacturing industry. Some 87% believe a strategy would provide their businesses with a better long-term vision on which to decide investment in future employment plans. To prevent another Alstom or Hitachi scenario, we must reassure the industry that the Government are prioritising its interests. I am hopeful that the Minister is going to give us some positive news, but the consequences of inaction are dire. Jobs and livelihoods are at risk, and it is time now for some decisive action.
The industry requires a steady stream of orders to sustain manufacturing and maintenance bases, alongside a proactive approach to replacing retiring engineers. We must abandon costly leasing, opting for direct purchases through Government procurement to bolster UK train manufacturing, which must be central to a long-term rail and industrial strategy, driving economic growth, innovation, and meeting our future transport needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues, we have just over 25 minutes remaining. If you aim for five minutes each, that should work.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Gary. Credit to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this critically important debate. I will try to skip parts of this as I go through.
When talking about the future of rail manufacturing, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the hon. Member for Easington has already said: the home of railways is the Stockton and Darlington railway in the north-east. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the oldest platform is in Heighington, where the Aycliffe levels are; it is also where Locomotion No. 1 was first placed on the line, starting the passenger railway service. Rail is in our blood in the north-east, and the Minister is very welcome to come and see these places for himself. It is important that we understand our history there and look after our stations. But clearly, railways are an industry not just of the past but of the future.
We saw the growth of the railways, but that declined as the motor car grew. It is now coming back again. It is important that we have sustainable and environmentally acceptable modes of transport. Rail is the key connector for passengers and freight in a cleaner, greener world. Rail undeniably has an exciting and developing future. That future needs to include the Hitachi facility based in my constituency, which has already been mentioned. Hitachi brought investment and innovation to both the rail market and the local economy. It is a first class employer that lives up to its tag line—“Inspire the Future”.
I have spoken with many employees and union members, who all express how the business consistently seeks to develop them; its partnership with the local university technical college is crucial for the people educated there. The work done by the Hitachi team in Aycliffe, since it was opened in September 2015, has been nothing short of spectacular. From a standing start, the employees and management have built a team and facility that anyone would be proud to have in their constituency. I was delighted when the Prime Minister went there last year and I hope to see the Secretary of State there shortly, too.
The skills and commitment are the foundational base for an exceptional future, and we must not allow them to dissipate. They are a core opportunity to support levelling-up in action. Those high standards are not just for the employees of Hitachi; they permeate throughout the local supply chain and the wider industrial base. Hitachi contributes to many aspects of rail in the UK, whether that be signalling or rolling stock. It is at the leading edge of new technologies such as battery power. That comprehensive footprint is a core component of its current and potential contribution to the future of rail in the UK.
Our rail manufacturing businesses and their extended supply chains are illustrative of the many areas of resilience we need as a country that have been sorely tested since covid-19. What were once reliable sources and supply routes have been tested almost to destruction. We have a clear and present need to improve our resilience in everything from food to power generation, and the rail industry has many of the skills we need as a country, both for the sector itself and for our broader manufacturing base. It is imperative that we find a way to help it through to the incredible future it can have.
We are all aware that the future of rail is coming at us like the proverbial train down the track. There are £3.6 billion-worth of rolling stock orders, but they are just over the horizon. We are all aware of the investments, such as in the Northumberland line, as well as the potential for Ferryhill station and the need for the Leamside line in the north-east. All those things are critical, but if we cannot see past the horizon to where the orders actually are, that runaway train of hope will not get here in time. It needs to get across the valley of uncertainty. Everyone I speak to is ready to help construct the bridge, but first we need to understand the size of the valley. We need to ensure that we can get there.
I have met with management many times, spoken incessantly to the Secretary of State and to the Minister, and facilitated a meeting between the unions and the Secretary of State. Everyone understands the complexity of the challenge and wants to do their bit to build the bridge, so I encourage the Minister and his Department to do all they can to help us get clarity on the size of the bridge that needs to be built, and to do all they can to minimise its size. I encourage the companies to be as creative as they in finding work to fill the gap. From the immensely positive discussions that I have had with the unions, I know that they will be as flexible as possible and do their bit to help the companies get them and their members across the valley of uncertainty to the future beyond.
I strongly encourage the Opposition Members who are politicising these concerns and trivialising the ability to resolve this matter to take a step back and not play politics. The political imperative could not be greater. If the Government wanted to be political, they would just use the pen as suggested, but it is clear that, for this particular order, they cannot. We need a real solution, not one that looks good but does not deliver.
I see real understanding and a commitment to resolve the issue. We are genuinely at an inflection point for the future of UK rail manufacturing. History will judge whether we get it right. For the employees in the rail manufacturing sector, it is imperative that we do.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this very important debate. He and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said that the north-east has a long tradition in rail manufacturing, and it is one we should be proud of, but it also has a future. It had a future when we secured the investment in the Hitachi factory in Newton Aycliffe, which supported not only 700 highly paid jobs but the supply chain. People should remember the history of how we got Hitachi in the north-east. I pay tribute to Durham County Council; the NDA, which the coalition Government abolished, and Phil Wilson, who was the MP for Sedgefield and a great champion of getting that investment.
Why did Hitachi come to Newton Aycliffe? It saw opportunities in the tradition, but also the opportunities in the workforce. It came there because it saw the growth in the UK market, as well as in exports to Europe. Well, Brexit has dealt a hammer blow to that, but Hitachi was still determined to contribute to the development of the UK rail industry. Remember that the Japanese do not take short-term decisions; they take long-term investment decisions. They invested because they saw a pathway of work in the UK.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield talked about the challenge and about not making the issue political. Well, I am sorry, but this is a political decision. As he said, it is about ensuring that we have a rail strategy, and that is about UK factories, including Newton Aycliffe, having consistent orders. The answer is in the Government’s hands. He is a member of the governing party, and he cannot say that there is no solution. There is. The solution is ensuring that there is a drumbeat of orders, not just for Newton Aycliffe but for the rest of UK rail manufacturing, so that we get long-term supply chains in place and retain skills.
Hitachi quite clearly has a gap coming up for two years before HS2 comes on stream. I am sorry to tell the hon. Member, but we cannot treat the skills that have been developed at Newton Aycliffe like a tap, turning them on when we want them and turning them off when we do not. We have to invest in them and keep them there. Those people’s livelihoods are important. If the next generation of rail workers are to come through, we need the investment and the certainty that those young people will have a future, not just necessarily at Hitachi but in the wider rail industry.
Paul Howell
I will probably surprise the right hon. Member by agreeing with him. The way in which the Japanese and Hitachi work is all about generational levels of training, investment and continuity. I endorse his point about the need for skills to be invested in and continued over long periods of time.
Mr Jones
I agree with the hon. Member, so why does he not criticise his own Government, who are not investing in the long-term strategy we need? We have had it in the shipbuilding industry and we have a shipbuilding strategy that makes that exact point: we need a drumbeat of orders. That the Government decide to put warships over to Spanish and not UK yards makes a mockery of their commitment to such long-term strategies.
If we are serious about levelling up, this is it in action. Levelling up is nothing new; the last Labour Government saw the need for it. It was the reason why we were involved in the NDA and why we attracted Hitachi to the north-east. I must say that it takes a lot, having dealt with Japanese politicians and industry for a number of years, for them to make the public statements they have made about the future of Newton Aycliffe. It is in the Government’s hands to ensure that we have the continuation of skills. Without that, it has a bleak future.
I pay huge tribute to the management and staff at Newton Aycliffe. With my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, I met representatives of Unite the union the other day and they are fully committed to the future of the plant. They are the people who want to ensure that not only they but future generations have jobs. The answer to Newton Aycliffe’s future is in the hands of the Government, who can make sure that in the next few years we have a continuous stream of orders going through, but this is not just an issue for Newton Aycliffe; other plants face it as well. It comes down to the sad fact that for the last 14 years of Conservative Government, there has been a lack of industrial strategy across the UK. This is a good example not only of how that lack of strategy will endanger our great jobs in Newton Aycliffe but of how hollow all the nonsense spoken about levelling up over the last few years has been.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I add my congratulations to my comrade from the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing this important debate.
Rail rolling stock manufacturing in the UK has a bright future in the medium to long term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) pointed out. In the coming years, there will be significant new orders, not just from HS2 but from Northern, Chiltern, ScotRail, Southeastern and others, which will be putting through considerable orders. The challenge at the moment is how we get over this short-term trough of orders. I am heartened that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State are meeting Alstom, Hitachi and others to find out how that can be resolved. Those conversations will be confidential, so I will not press him on that.
My main point today is that the peaks and troughs in the procurement of rolling stock and, indeed, other parts of rail infrastructure are not a new phenomenon. For many decades, the industry has had a tap-on, tap-off approach and we need to address that. There is an opportunity to do that with the creation of Great British Railways, the way for which was paved by the draft Rail Reform Bill my Committee is scrutinising. I believe that if that is done in the right way, it can help to knit together the industry’s objectives and create a long-term horizon that will engender investment from Hitachi, Alstom and others. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of my Committee’s work, but we have already received considerable written evidence, and that is what the industry is calling for. For example, the Rail Industry Association made that point forcefully.
It is not just about having a strategy of buying new rolling stock; it is about the type of rolling stock that is needed, which is why we require a whole-industry perspective for the long term. There is an ongoing and evolving debate about the extent and type of electrification of the network. For some lines, the cost of electrifying the whole line are prohibitive, so we can have what is known as discontinuous electrification with battery electric trains. To arrive at that point, which I think is eminently sensible, different parts of the industry need to work together. I believe GBR can do that, and that is one of the areas that the Committee will explore.
The second point I want to make in the little time I have left is that although the procurement of new rolling stock is important, another important part of the rolling stock industry is refurbishment. Rolling stock has a long lifespan—typically, 30 or 40 years—but it often requires a refresh halfway through. Avanti currently has a refurbishment programme for the Pendolino stock carried out by Alstom at its site near Widnes, which I had the privilege of visiting not long ago.
We can do better in other parts of rolling stock system, too. I will give a brief example from my own line—the west coast main line. London Northwestern Railway is about to take delivery of brand new rolling stock, which is great; it will be faster and have more capacity, and it will be warmly welcomed, but the units it will replace are not life expired; they are perfectly good trains. They might need a refresh and some new kit in them, but they can be used. There is a gap in the thinking about how we can most efficiently use that cascaded rolling stock elsewhere in the network, where it might be needed. I appreciate the short-term anxieties about Hitachi and Alstom, and I hope they are resolved, but we need a much longer term, holistic perspective for this industry.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am terribly concerned that Britain is facing a cycle of managed decline, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this debate, which addresses some of that.
I spoke to Hitachi Rail ahead of this debate, and it cannot be stressed enough that if the Government do not take robust action, the company will see a colossal loss of skills and capability, and could be talking to its staff within very few months. Let us not forget that, thanks to an agreement with the Government of the day and as a consequence of the tremendous work of my former colleague Phil Wilson, it invested £110 million to open the state-of-the-art train manufacturing facility in 2015. It has 750 highly skilled workers and supports 1,400 jobs in the wider supply chain—many in my Stockton North constituency. Now, just nine years later, the company is needlessly facing a gap in its workload. It has a two to three-year production gap from when the last train leaves in March 2025. Unite’s press release confirms that work on those contracts is set to decline by October 2024.
Hitachi Rail tells me that it started engaging with the UK Government more than two years ago on this issue, and more importantly, on the solution. There was a visit from the Prime Minister, who was briefed on the challenges and the solutions. During that visit, he promoted the world-class manufacturing taking place. Hitachi Rail identified a contract variation for an additional 29 of the Avanti West Coast trains that are currently being manufactured. The volume of work and the ability to exercise and option an existing contract in the necessary timeframe made this the best way to maintain the skills base and bridge the production gap to HS2. It is a genuine long-term solution to the challenge.
As part of those discussions, Hitachi Rail also proposed the hybridisation of the Newton Aycliffe site, which entails investment so that maintenance work, bogie overhaul and repair work can take place at the site. However, those hybridisation—that is a new word to me, Sir Gary—solutions alone cannot maintain the manufacturing skills base. After two years of regular engagement, the UK Government informed Hitachi Rail in March 2024 that they were unable to exercise that option, citing the risk of third-party legal action as being too high.
Receiving a negative decision so late in the process means that finding viable solutions in the necessary timeframe increases the risk for the workforce. Of course, it is 19 years not nine years since the factory opened. Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said:
“The government needs to pull its finger out and tender the extension of the West Coast contract to Hitachi immediately. Ministers talk a good game about levelling up. The fact is, however, that at both Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe and Alstom in Derby, workers are in disbelief that ministerial incompetence is delaying announcements that would safeguard highly skilled jobs.”
We in the north-east have been let down time and again by the Tory Government. Not so long ago, the world-renowned Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company at Darlington was abandoned. Before that, they abandoned primary steelmaking, and not long after that, they failed to support the communities that had invested in the Sirius mine and allowing it to be sold to one of the world’s biggest companies.
It is vital that trade manufacturing in the UK is seen as part of the long-term strategy for rail and that it does not go the same way as the likes of Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, which built the Sydney Harbour bridge and the Tyne bridge, among others. Some of the best trains are being built in this country, and we need to do much more of that. A Labour Government would exercise the option to bring forward the work, and today’s Government should do likewise. I hope the Minister understands that and will revisit all the negative decisions taken around this crisis to ensure the industry’s long-term and continual viability.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I will keep my remarks short because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), whom I thank for securing the debate, clearly set out and as many hon. Members have said, this affects people in constituencies across the country where thousands of jobs have already been lost across the supply chain. The basic issue is the lack of long-term orders on the books at many of the rolling stock manufacturers. The wasteful rolling stock company—ROSCO—system we have for leasing does nothing to help the industry, nor indeed the taxpayer. That money, which amounts to billions of pounds over the past few decades, could have been saved through a different leasing system and could be going back into support the industry right now.
The simple fact is that Alstom and Hitachi Rail have the lion’s share of the market between them—around 55%—so they dominate the entire sector. What happens to them is crucial for the whole long-term strategy of the industry. Their issue is that they were asked to clear their past order books so that they could commence construction for what they expected to be many years of building HS2 trains. Currently, those orders are 18 months to 24 months behind.
Previously, the Government have not taken seriously a procurement strategy that supports British jobs. In 2011, they gave away the contract for Thameslink to the German-based firm Siemens, which cost at least 1,400 jobs directly. On top of that—this is just one example that we know has already happened—it meant that there were 12,000 losses in the supply chain. We know that around 900 people are employed on temporary contracts at Hitachi Rail and Alstom. That means that even before any formal redundancy process has happened, those people—nearly 1,000 people—are very much at risk of losing their job. In fact, it has now been reported that in at least one of those firms, some formal redundancy processes are starting.
Part of what is absurd about this situation is that it was HS2 that enticed CAF, Siemens and Hitachi Rail to set up their operations here in the UK and to build manufacturing plants in communities where we thought, as many hon. Members have described, jobs would be kept for generations to come—as they should be, because rail is still the transport solution of the future, not just of the here and now. That feast and famine scenario means, however, that some manufacturers can maintain only a core of staff working as trained engineers on the production lines, with the vast majority of staff being employed part time or on agency contracts. That is not ideal. When manufacturers feel the pinch because of a lack of orders coming onstream fast enough, it is easy to remove those staff and potentially none of them will be re-employed any time soon. In fact, at Alstom, only one of the 40 manufacturing sheds remains in operation while it waits for parts from other parts of the supply chain.
Over the Easter holidays, I took my children on the Bluebell railway—the Minister will know it well. It is a fantastic heritage railway. Being on those amazing steam trains made me reflect on the fact that we are the country of Stephenson’s Rocket, the industrial revolution, the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman. We are also the country of advanced passenger technology. Ironically, a Conservative Government sold that to the Italians, and it has now been sold back to us so we can use it on the Pendolino trains that go up the west coast.
We are also the country of High Speed 1 and, in partnership with our French friends, built the first high-speed rail network under a seabed. We are a nation that has been more than capable for more than 150 years; we are the foremost rail manufacturing industrial country in the world. The Minister has within his hands—within the procurement strategy and the country’s long-term industrial strategy—the power to make Britain’s rail industry great again. I urge him and his colleagues in Government to stand up and do what is right, so that we have a proud manufacturing history in this country for my children and for the next 100 years.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Gary. I congratulate my good friend and colleague from the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing today’s debate. I could not disagree with a single word he said in his contribution. He spoke of the Hitachi Newton Aycliffe plant in his local area, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who is also my colleague on the Transport Committee. The hon. Member for Easington made a spirited plea for jobs there, and mentioned ROSCOs, as did the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), which I will come on to.
We have heard contributions from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), as well as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Ilford South. Only two of the contributors today are not current or very recent members of the august Select Committee on Transport, including the Minister himself.
We welcomed Great British Railways, at least in principle, because it was a step closer to reintegrating strategic decisions on track and trains. In many ways, it sought to replicate the arrangements that have been in place in Scotland in recent years, but which have been completely absent in England and Wales for 30 years since franchising. It has been six years since the Government commissioned a report that three years ago called for legislation to formally establish Great British Railways. Too much time has been wasted over these last years.
There are not many hon. Members present who would disagree that the Rail Minister is a fundamentally decent man who wants to see a better railway. I am sure he will form part of the shadow Cabinet in the not-too-distant future—what the Lord giveth, he taketh away—but he has inherited an utterly dysfunctional system. Not for the first time, that dysfunction is threatening tens of thousands of jobs in the rail industry, not just in primary manufacturers, but across the supply chain. I say that despite the welcome but last-minute intervention last week.
While I was researching for today’s debate, I came across a similar debate that took place in the Commons nearly 30 years ago. On that occasion, the debate was secured by the former Member for Cunninghame North, Brian Wilson. I need to wash my mouth out with soap, but this is one of the few occasions where I agree with the bulk of what he said. I can guarantee that this will not become a habit. On the last day before the Christmas recess in December 1994, Brian Wilson discussed the threat to the rail manufacturing industry that was posed by the Government’s policy and strategy, or rather the lack of them. He said:
“It is a rapidly unfolding, utterly unnecessary tragedy created solely by the Government’s policies towards the railways…Ministers could not have been more effective in creating a fatal hiatus for the train building industry if they had planned to do so.”—[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1538.]
Again, I do not want to make a habit of agreeing with Mr Wilson—I do not think that he would welcome that—but he was on the money then. Warnings were given that the ABB rolling stock works at York were under threat, due to a lack of orders, and that prediction came to pass just two years later. In major part, that lack of orders was caused by the confusion and dislocation caused by privatisation and franchising, which in turn paralysed British Rail, as it was then.
The creation of ROSCOs did not help matters, because they were hived off by the Government to the private sector at criminally low prices. The Minister who responded to that 1994 debate told the main Chamber that the rail industry had to face up to
“the realities of the marketplace.”—[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1545]
Grahame Morris
The hon. Member is making some excellent points. On ROSCOs, I remind hon. Members that in the current year, I believe that they are making in excess of £400 million in profit.
Gavin Newlands
I would not disagree with the hon. Member on that.
To continue on ROSCOs, nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why we continue to have a system whereby rolling stock companies, which are all owned by private equity and investment funds, are the primary owners of multiple units, locos, passenger carriages and freight wagons, rather than the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for them. ROSCOs are generating almost risk-free profits for their owners, which are almost exclusively overseas funds, because ultimately, private rail operators have the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort. They were gifted BR stock at a bargain price and have spent the last three decades coining it in every time a new fleet is needed for an operator. That is just one example of the billions leaking out of the system to private finance that could instead be invested in the public rail network or in a sustainable and properly managed rolling stock procurement programme.
To conclude, the current model has failed. It was failing 30 years ago, it has failed since then, and it will continue to fail for the next 30 years unless this issue is specifically addressed in any rail reform package that is brought forward by this Government or any future Government.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing and opening this important debate. It has been a well-informed and timely debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to it. My hon. Friend spoke with real knowledge and understanding of the transport network, including the current challenges facing the rail sector and rail manufacturing. He spoke about the consequences of a lack of an industrial strategy and the value of rail manufacturing jobs, not only to local communities but to wider regions, stressing the need to honour existing contracts to help secure the future pipeline of work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was absolutely right to say how vital a steady drumbeat of work is to secure rail manufacturing for the future. I know that he knows that very well from his extensive work on shipbuilding and I thank him for the points that he has made today.
Other Members made very valuable points with regard to the need for a long-term, holistic view of what is required to secure work for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) shared concerns about the delays in ministerial announcements and the implications of those delays, while my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) spoke about the Government not taking seriously their commitments to support industry and jobs, and about what that means in terms of putting the sector at risk.
As we have heard, Britain’s rail manufacturing is in a state of crisis. In Derby, 1,300 jobs are at risk at Litchurch Lane, a factory that has been making trains for 150 years. Another 700 are at risk in Newton Aycliffe, and more than 16,000 jobs are at risk in the supply chains.
Behind these jobs are people with decades of experience and expertise and centuries of family history in our rail sector. When I visited Alstom last year, I met people who were following in the footsteps of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents by working on that site. They had no plans to leave, but the uncertainty of the past has already caused so many to do so. This uncertainty has been extremely worrying for those in jobs that are at risk and for the rail sector as a whole, which has been unable to plan for the years ahead.
The frustrating thing is that all this has been avoidable. Both Alstom and Hitachi are clear that their uncertain future is thanks to the Government’s inaction. Ministers have been warned about the feast and famine of rolling stock pipelines for years, yet they have continued with the short-term, sticking-plaster approach, which has created a crisis in our rail manufacturing sector. Instead of confronting this problem, the Transport Secretary spent months with his head in the sand, saying that a deal to save jobs was out of his hands. As a result, deadlines were missed, skilled workers have left for jobs elsewhere and supply chain companies have gone bust. The contractor Paintbox went into administration last year when its work painting new carriages in Derby dried up. Motherson, which did the wiring on trains, pulled out of the site, and Solo Rail Solutions in Birmingham, which made the doors, appointed administrators earlier this month.
This is not just about job losses; what the Government do not seem to recognise is that huge industries cannot simply be turned on and off. Laying off workers means a loss of skillsets that take years to replace. It also means a loss of capability in the British market, which means less competition, more imports and rising costs for future procurements.
Last week, the Transport Secretary proposed a last minute order of Elizabeth line trains from Derby, but no formal deal has yet been reached. However, if one is reached, let us be clear what this will mean: another short-term sticking plaster that reveals the gaping hole in the Government’s non-existent industrial policy and means we are likely to have another groundhog-day experience with Hitachi in the months to come—more workers fearful for their job security, more families moving away due to uncertainty and more supply-chain companies struggling to survive.
Alex Cunningham
In my speech, I mentioned that the Government are using their problem with the level of risk to bring forward procurement. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to balance that risk with the risk of losing all those skills in cases such as that of Hitachi?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring consistency and clarity to the sector, so that the investment can take place. Many Members have said as much, and I thank my hon. Friend for putting that message on record.
This is a time when our rail industry needs certainty, stability and leadership. The managed decline that we have seen from this Government is only putting our railway jobs at risk. The Minister has many questions to answer. Other hon. Members have already asked many questions, so I ask him only one: what is he doing to stop a repeat of what we have seen in Derby over the past year happening in Newton Aycliffe in the coming months and elsewhere down the line? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and would like to restate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for tabling this debate.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I call Minister Huw Merriman to respond. If he would leave a minute or so for the mover of the debate to wind up, that would be great.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
With pleasure, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start by thanking my good friend, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), for securing this important debate on the future of rail manufacturing and for his engaging and impassioned speech. He is always a real warrior for the railway and the workforce. Rail remains a top priority for the Government. It connects people to places, delivers the goods we rely on and, as we have heard during the debate, supports jobs in our communities.
Turning straightaway to rolling stock manufacturing, since 2012 the Government have commissioned 8,000 new rolling-stock vehicles—that is out of the 15,600 we have in total. That has encouraged four train manufacturers to set up shop here in the UK. It is worth stating for the record, because it could have been missed in what has been said this afternoon, that in 2010 there was only one train manufacturer. We now are proud to have four. We are very keen to ensure that the four thrive and survive. I will come on to that point later in my speech.
These businesses are now assembling and building trains, while bringing growth to local communities. The average age of rolling stock has fallen from 21 years in 2016 to just under 17 years today. The hon. Member for Easington pointed to one particular train operator that has had a longer tenure, but I tend to look at the entirety of the network, and the average age is under 17 years, which is less than half the average life span for a vehicle, which tends to be 35 to 40 years. Britain’s modernised fleet of trains offers improved comfort and services to passengers across the country, while benefiting the UK rail supply chain, which came together to design, manufacture, paint and assemble the new trains. We have a workforce to be proud of. It is right that train manufacturing is a competitive, commercial market.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister was talking about the comfort of travelling by train. I would like to personally invite him to take a trip with me from Darlington to Saltburn on the train one day, and we will see what comfort we have to put up with in the Tees Valley.
Huw Merriman
Look, I travel by train all the time, not just on my own line, which I believe has the oldest train stock, but across the country. I spend every single week travelling by train across the country. I am sure at some point I will experience that part of the country as well. The facts do not lie. Out of our total of 15,600 trains, 8,000 are new trains that have been built since 2012. That shows that improvements are happening, but there is more to do, and I am always keen to do more.
It is vital that rolling-stock-owning companies continue to play their role. The private sector has invested around £20 billion to transform our train fleets for passengers. Trains are major assets, and there will naturally be procurement cycles. Our travel habits have changed since the covid pandemic. While passenger numbers are now stabilising, we are still seeing a reduction in revenue. Despite this, the order of 54 high-speed trains for phase 1 of High Speed 2 remains unchanged. There has also been a sizeable contract awarded recently to LNER, and there are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Southeastern, TransPennine Express and Chiltern. This process will be open to all manufacturers, as is right. Over the next two to three years, we envisage contracts being signed for over 2,000 new vehicles, with a total value of more than £3.6 billion.
Competitions for procurements to upgrade existing rolling stock fleets are also in the works. East Midlands, Chiltern and CrossCountry are due to modernise their existing fleets. With several other operators, such as Avanti West Coast and the Angel Trains Pendolino fleet, refurbishment is already under way. None the less, we recognise that some manufacturers face gaps in their order books over the next two to three years. I disagree with the claim by the hon. Member for Easington that the Government have not acted quickly enough on potential job losses at Alstom and Hitachi. The Secretary of State and I have been involved in discussions with both companies over several months.
This is a complex issue. There are no straightforward solutions, and any intervention must comply with the law while ensuring value for passengers, taxpayers and Governments. As I referenced in the Chamber last week, Siemens gave us a good example of that by challenging in court the award for HS2 that went to Hitachi and Alstom. The Department was found to have won on every single point. That acts as a guiding point for how we must make our tendering process work. If we do not make that work and we award contracts that are ruled unlawful by the courts, we create more uncertainty for the workforce, which we are doing our best to help.
Huw Merriman
I have not got time, so I am sorry, I will not give way.
I am pleased to report my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary had a constructive meeting last week with Alstom’s chairman and CEO and its UK and Ireland director. We have now entered a period of intense discussion with the company. It would not be appropriate to go into the details of those conversations at this stage. Work continues at pace, and I know the Transport Secretary plans to update the House at the appropriate time.
With regards to Hitachi, last week the Transport Secretary met Unite’s assistant general secretary and representatives from Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant. I met a representative from Hitachi in Parliament yesterday as well. The Secretary of State was able to explain the facts of the situation and the Government’s position, facilitated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who has assisted greatly. The Department remains keen to work closely with Hitachi to help the company find a solution. We strongly encourage Hitachi to continue to engage constructively with us.
The future for our plants is very much focused on exports, as it has to be. Now that we have four train manufacturers it is key for us to work with those manufacturers so that products that are designed and built in the UK are exported abroad and we can grow the plant. I will add that when it comes to rail infrastructure investment, we have published a £44 billion five-year funding settlement for Network Rail’s operations, maintenance and renewal activity in 2029, which provides further opportunities for UK rail manufacturers and suppliers.
The key to the future of rail manufacturing is to continue to invest in rail across the entire network. The £12 billion that we have just announced to help Northern Powerhouse Rail better connect Liverpool to Manchester and deliver new routes and stations across the north will provide more opportunities for train manufacturers and the rolling stock that they will produce. That is where the TransPennine route upgrade will help with the TransPennine Express order, which is to market. Of course, Network North also saw our commitment to deliver on the Ferryhill scheme, subject to a successful business case at each stage. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield for his unwavering commitment.
It has come up a number of times, so I will thank the Transport Committee for its work carrying through rail reform as the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I note there are six current or former members of the Committee in the Chamber for this debate. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), is spot on in saying that it gives us a longer-term, holistic approach to allow the railway to organise itself. One would hope that industry will be better supported by that holistic approach. I am very grateful for the work that the Committee is doing.
Time does not allow me to continue, but I shall conclude by saying that I cannot overstate the role of rail manufacturing in supporting a growing economy. We are really proud of the four train manufacturers we now have in this country. We want to do everything we can to work with them and the individuals working in the wider rail supply chain. Their jobs matter hugely to us. We understand the uncertainty and we are working hard to unblock it. That is why the Government are committed to working with businesses to overcome the challenges and maximise the opportunities ahead, both at home and abroad. We work towards our shared ambition to bring track and train together with rail reform, and support our fantastic rail and train manufacturers.
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Sir Gary, for the exemplary way in which you have chaired the debate. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and considered responses. We are all aware that he knows the solutions to the problem and we seek to push him to make the decisions that are required in the interests of retaining those jobs, directly and in the supply chain, as quickly as possible.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), as well as my colleagues and comrades from the Transport Committee, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). I particularly thank the respective Front Benchers for their responses.
Without action, we will be modernising or replacing our trains with imported units using taxpayers’ money to support thousands of jobs and apprenticeships overseas rather than in the UK. We implore the Minister to act, and to preserve the excellent jobs that we have in our existing manufacturing centres.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.
Written Statements
Tenant Farming
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
The tenant farming sector is a central part of our plan to back British farmers and grow the rural economy. This is now firmly embedded within Government. Today we set out the progress we have made in delivering our commitments to the tenanted sector, one year on from the publication of the Government response to the Rock review of tenant farming. I am very pleased to report that we have active work under way to deliver or have completed on 64 of 75 of the commitments we made in our line-by-line response to the Rock review. I have written to all Members of Parliament today with more details on the actions we have taken and highlight key progress below.
Farm Tenancy Forum
In the summer of 2023, we established the joint Government and industry Farm Tenancy Forum, improving our engagement with the sector and supporting the implementation of our Government response commitments. The forum is having a very positive impact, ensuring that we consider the unique challenges facing the sector, facilitating more collaborative relationships between landlords and tenants, and helping to shape our farming policies and schemes so that they work for tenant farmers.
Agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice
I can report that the Farm Tenancy Forum, supported by the Government, published a new agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice on 8 April 2024. This important new code delivers on a key recommendation of the Rock review by setting out standards of responsible conduct for all parties to tenancy agreements. The code will support landlords and tenants, and their professional advisers, to establish and maintain positive, productive, and sustainable commercial relationships, achieved through dialogue and a sense of fairness and proportionality. We extend thanks to all members of the Farm Tenancy Forum and the expert working group for their collaborative work in developing the code.
We have also delivered a targeted industry call for evidence examining the potential benefits, impacts and role of a commissioner for the tenant farming sector to provide oversight of practices in the sector. We are considering next steps including the practical functions of this role, and a further update will follow.
Improving access to our environmental land management schemes
We have continued to make our environmental land management schemes accessible for tenants and expanded the number of actions that tenants can select. The positive changes we have made to the sustainable farming initiative scheme include:
offering three-year agreements to coincide with the average length of many tenancy agreements;
ensuring that tenants who expect to have management control for three years can apply, meaning many farmers with annual rolling tenancy agreements can access SFI;
removing penalties for tenants who may have to exit a scheme early if their tenancy ends unexpectedly;
recommending communication and collaboration with landlords but not requiring the tenant to gain landlord consent to enter the scheme, provided there is no permanent land use change. However, the tenant should always check the terms of their tenancy agreements before entering SFI.
When introduced, our expanded 2024 ELM offer will have many more actions with a three-year duration further expanding our offer for the tenanted sector. We are also exploring the possibility of enabling collaborative joint tenant-landlord agreements in ELM. This could provide a beneficial additional route into some of our longer-term options schemes for some tenants and landlords where both parties want to work together.
We have designed our agroforestry offer in a way that is responsive to the needs of tenants. We are testing a farm woodland standard through SFI including smaller-scale agroforestry which is more suitable to tenant farmers and in line with the recommendations from the Rock review.
Additionally, we are removing tax barriers to enable landlords and tenants to access longer term environmental schemes. We announced in our budget that from 6 April 2025 we will be extending the scope of agricultural property relief to include land managed under an environmental agreement. This will open up the way for greater collaboration between tenants and landlords so that both parties can access the benefits.
Recent and ongoing surveys indicate that a third of SFI applications are from wholly tenanted and mixed tenure farms. We are pleased with these indicators that demonstrate strong uptake of SFI by the tenanted sector. We will continue to monitor the uptake and impact of our ELM schemes in the tenanted sector and report findings to the Farm Tenancy Forum.
Improving access to our capital grant schemes
We have also continued to improve accessibility to our capital grant offers, supporting investment in farming equipment, technology, and infrastructure by reducing minimum grant rates and reviewing our intervention rates. We have allowed landlords to underwrite tenants’ applications if both parties wanted to pursue this option and continue to explore other options for collaborative landlord-tenant applications. We also no longer require tenants to have a tenancy agreement in place for five years to access our grants, they must merely commit to holding the asset for five years.
Private markets and natural capital
On 12 March, we issued an update on progress under the nature markets framework of March 2023, including the importance of ensuring that the tenanted sector can access opportunities that nature markets provide. The update recognised the role the Farm Tenancy Forum in developing further guidance on the management of ecosystem services on tenanted land and in showcasing best practice for approaching this within tenancy agreements. The Farm Tenancy Forum will develop this activity following the outcome of the British Standards Institution’s consultation on their overarching principles standard—the first of a suite of nature investment standards sponsored by DEFRA—to ensure tenant sector specific guidance fits within these frameworks.
This update demonstrates that one year on we have made good progress in delivering the commitments we made in response to the Rock review. We will continue to put the needs and voices of the tenanted sector at the heart of our policies and schemes. This is a vital part of meeting our food security and environmental objectives.
[HCWS424]
Productivity Within Policing
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Today the Government have published our response to the independent policing productivity review.
Improving productivity across the public sector is a priority for this Government. Increasing the productivity of policing means ensuring our police officers are able to do their jobs effectively and stripping away the unnecessary barriers they face. This will free up police time so that officers are able to concentrate on frontline work, protecting the public, detecting crime, and catching criminals. This will make the public safer and allow them to feel safe, increasing confidence in policing, another priority for this Government.
In August 2022, the Home Office commissioned the National Police Chiefs’ Council to conduct an independent review of productivity in policing, providing clear, practical and deliverable recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness across the functions of policing. The review was published on 20 November 2023 and identified many opportunities for policing to improve productivity, with the potential to save 38 million hours of police officer time every year. That would be the equivalent of another 20,000 officers on our streets.
Our response sets out the Government’s support for the review and their recommendations. We have already announced investment of over £230 million at the spring Budget to drive productivity and performance improvements across policing. This will include additional investment into technology and innovation measures such as facial recognition, using drones as first responders, redaction, rapid video response, automated triage of 101 calls, knife detection and robotic process automation.
The Government will create a new Centre for Police Productivity, based in the College of Policing. This will be established from autumn 2024 and set the foundations necessary for policing to deliver the 38 million police officer hours identified by the independent review.
The Government are confident that policing will rise to the challenge of meeting the ambitions of the review’s recommendations. Our response outlines how we will support them in doing so.
A copy of the response to the policing productivity review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available at www.gov.uk.
[HCWS422]
Intergovernmental Relations Annual Transparency Report 2023
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Today, the Government published the third annual transparency report of our engagement with the devolved Administrations on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. This report has been laid as a Command Paper in both Houses. The Government have also published the fourth quarterly transparency report dashboard for 2023, also on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk.
The annual report follows on from each of the quarterly dashboards published on www.gov.uk throughout the year. The annual report shows that we are a Union which shares similar challenges. This report covers a period where we have seen once in a generation events and gives an insight into the extensive engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations between 1 January to 31 December 2023. During this reporting period, the Administrations worked together on a number of areas, not least in organising the coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla, the unlocking of two green freeports in Scotland and two freeports in Wales, and the successful joint UK and Ireland bid to host the UEFA European championships in 2028. The report highlights that our collective strength is why we are able to face and tackle big changes and challenges.
The report is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to transparency of intergovernmental relations to Parliament and the public. The Government will continue with such publications to demonstrate transparency in intergovernmental relations.
[HCWS423]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 View all Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (19 Apr 2024)
Baroness Hayman
“(A1) The OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to new offshore installations other than that required in an emergency.(A2) From two years after the day on which this Act is passed, the OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to existing offshore installations.(A3) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under subsection (A1) or (A2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(A4) In subsections (A1) and (A2)—“flaring” means the burning of hydrocarbons produced during oil and gas extraction;“venting” means the release of un-combusted hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the invitation of new seaward area production licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on flaring and venting by new offshore installations. It also requires the Secretary of State to prevent licensing rounds if a wider ban is not in place within two years of Royal Assent.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Committee stage, and I promise to resist the temptation to relitigate any of the issues of principle that we discussed previously. I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and director of the associated company.
In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 2, but I look forward very much to hearing the argument on Amendments 9 and 10, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Amendment 1. I would also like to thank those organisations that have supplied briefing, including Uplift, Oceana and the Green Alliance.
In the vein of trying to do what we can to improve a fundamentally flawed Bill, my Amendment 1 seeks to make progress on the important issue of greenhouse gas emissions from venting and flaring and builds on an amendment introduced in debates in the other place by Sir Alok Sharma. The amendment is a simple and pragmatic proposal, which seeks to give statutory force to existing voluntary guidance on this issue and to factor in the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee of the other place, made in January 2023, which recommended a ban on venting and flaring by 2025.
The amendment does two things. First, it says that there should be no invitations for new licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on venting and flaring from new installations. Secondly, it would give the Secretary of State a maximum of two years to introduce a ban on venting and flaring from all installations if any further licensing rounds are to take place. The EAC’s report recommended a ban not later than the end of 2025. My amendment recognises that time has moved on since 2023 and amends the timeline appropriately. Adopting this change would help the Government to demonstrate that they are serious about maintaining their global leadership on climate action by turning their stated ambition into delivery.
The practice of venting and flaring is a serious issue. It takes place when extra gas is produced, usually as a by-product of oil extraction that producers need to get rid of, rather than sending back to shore. They do this by venting the natural gas, releasing it directly into the atmosphere as methane, or by flaring—burning the gas—which, as well as releasing methane, releases volumes of other greenhouses gases and pollutants such as black soot and nitrous oxide. Both practices are damaging and polluting, as well as being, in the words of the IEA, an “extraordinary waste of money”.
Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. It is the second biggest cause of global heating after CO2 and has a far higher warming effect in the short term. However, its short lifespan in the atmosphere compared with other greenhouse gases means that taking action to cut methane now is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit global warming in this crucial decade.
It is also a very wasteful practice. Green Alliance research has found that just 18 of the highest polluting oil and gas platforms in the North Sea are losing enough gas through venting and flaring to power 140,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Aberdeen. The North Sea transition deal commits the industry to a voluntary cut in emissions of 50% by 2030 on a pathway to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Committee described those targets as weak and significantly lower than its sixth carbon budget advice—but, even so, the industry is not on track to meet them. Added to that, the North Sea Transition Authority emissions monitoring report of 2023 shows that UK oil is more polluting than average, compared to that of other major producers, including gas imported via pipelines from Norway and other nations operating in the North Sea.
The Government agreed in 2020 to phase out routine venting and flaring by 2030. There is guidance in place from the regulator, the NSTA, which expects the industry to adhere to zero routine venting and flaring by 2030, and where all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.
In response to Sir Alok’s similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister argued against putting its ambition into legislation. However, this is not groundbreaking: Norway has had a ban in place since 1971 and even the US Bureau of Land Management is now taking action. Voluntary guidance is just not doing what is needed; it is not always followed by industry or the regulator. Just last year, the NSTA granted approval for the , permitting the operators to flare unwanted gas until 2037, in spite of the guidance that new developments should have zero venting and flaring by 2030. Progress to reduce methane emissions in the UK has, according to the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum, been very slow, particularly in the energy sector, where percentage drops year on year have stayed flat.
The CCC, the EAC and the net-zero review have all highlighted that the UK is not going fast enough on methane reduction. There are no technical barriers to ending routine venting and flaring, as the IEA has said. As for cost, industry spending on reducing emissions from venting and flaring is subject to a tax break of £1.09 for every pound spent. As the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum put it,
“Action on methane is … recognised as the ‘last low hanging fruit’ in tackling climate change because measures are readily available and in some cases very cost effective”.
If the Government are serious about their commitments to reduce methane, there really is no excuse for not using this Bill to make faster progress to reduce the emissions from oil and gas production. At Second Reading, the Minister said that he would listen carefully to views on this, so I look forward to his response to the debate that we are about to have.
I move on to Amendment 2, which is also in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding their names. At Second Reading, many noble Lords highlighted the need to address the long-term employment prospects of those currently working within the oil and gas sector. My Amendment 2 seeks clarification from the Government on their plans for workers currently employed in our declining North Sea basin to transition to the sustainable jobs of the future. Rather than losing the 30,000 or so direct roles in oil and gas and the valuable skills of those workers, who may be forced to move elsewhere, we need to nurture their transformed skills into the new net-zero roles.
My amendment proposes that there should be no new applications for licences until the Secretary of State has published a green skills retraining plan setting out what support the Government will provide for those in the oil and gas sector who wish to transition to work in green economy jobs. Specifically, it proposes the introduction of a skills passport for workers, which will provide financial and practical support to access training so that those workers can, easily and without additional cost to them, reskill and retrain for the future and be part of the green economy.
The Government recognised in Committee in the Commons that the skills and expertise of the oil and gas industry will be needed to support the net zero transition; however, action to achieve this appears to have stalled. The CCC has pressed for more to be done on net zero skills. It noticed in its 2023 progress report that its earlier cross-cutting policy recommendation for an action plan for net zero skills was “overdue”. It focused on the need for a strategy for those
“workers and communities affected by industries that are expected to experience job losses as a result of the Net Zero transition, including by providing reskilling packages and tailored support to transition to alternative low-carbon sectors”
A recent POST briefing note on green jobs noted that the UK Government’s green jobs delivery group planned to publish a net zero and nature workforce action plan in the first half of 2024. Can the Minister provide an update on when this is likely to be published and any insight into what it is likely to offer? The North Sea transition deal involved commissioning an integrated people and skills plan, which was followed by an Offshore Energies UK 2023 Workforce Insight report that promised to deliver a skills passport so that people can move seamlessly between sectors. Can the Minister provide an update on the skills passport and when this is likely to be produced? Can he confirm that it will provide financial support for workers looking to move into green jobs?
The second part of my amendment probes another recommendation of the Workforce Insight report: the creation of a green skills retraining task force to co-ordinate the retraining provisions that are required across the UK. Will the Government be progressing this recommendation? If not, how will the required skills transition be delivered? I hope the Minister will be able to provide some insight into the Government’s thinking on this important issue and give much needed assurance to workers in the oil and gas sector that their skills are valued and needed, both now and in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9 in my name and say a little about Amendment 10. I have also put my name to Amendment 1, about which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I thank her for moving that amendment so well—and Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis.
Amendment 9 is in my name and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Young. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a marine spatial prioritisation policy, and a spatial prioritisation test to be passed before future licensing could take place. It would mean that before any more oil and gas licensing is permitted, it would have to fit into what the North Sea of the future looks like, with space set aside for other priorities—the priorities of the future, I suggest: marine health and renewable infrastructure. Specifically, the plan would need to ensure that the targets under both the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act are prioritised and achieved.
For the purposes of this amendment, the test could not be passed unless a marine spatial prioritisation policy was in place. This is something the Government have committed to, but there is a risk that, without this amendment, we could be inviting future licensing rounds which will not take account of, or even be in accordance with, a strategy the Government are currently producing. I believe it is wholly pragmatic in its approach. The NSTA did not run licensing rounds while it waited for the now redundant climate compatibility checkpoint to be published, so there is a precedent here for this approach.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, very much. I will speak on the marine amendments in this group—Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord. I also support the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 10 is really very simple: it would stop licensing in our marine protected areas. As I stated at Second Reading, these areas have been designated for protection and enhancement in order to conserve the critical species, habitats and ecosystems that they contain. Their protection is critical for many reasons, not least because we have signed up to this in both UK and international law. We now have 377 marine protected areas, which account for 38% of our seas.
In order to be included in the 2030 target—to protect 30% of our oceans by 2030—the Government’s own suggested criteria are that these MPAs need to have long-term protection and/or management in place that works against adverse pressures on biodiversity objectives. However, the interpretation of what constitutes adverse pressure on these MPAs is where there is the most disagreement, even between government departments, a point that is highly relevant to this Bill. Currently, there is nothing in the licensing process to prevent the North Sea Transition Authority from offering up licences in marine protected areas. Indeed, licences are currently being granted in marine protected areas: in the most recent licensing round, 22% of the licences granted were in such areas.
Is oil drilling in an MPA a problem? Well, it makes a huge difference. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the evidence suggests that it can have a large and irreversible impact. However, when asked about this, the Government have said, in various responses to the Parliamentary Questions looking at the impact, that the OPL Bill will not affect the UK’s ability to reach the targets for ensuring that marine protected areas are in a good or recovering state and that the licences will only ever have been awarded once the environmental regulator is satisfied that the activities would not negatively impact protected areas. This was reiterated by the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated:
“We already have a robust regulatory framework in place to ensure that marine protected areas are effectively protected. Licences will be awarded only after ensuring that the environmental regulator OPRED is satisfied that activities will not have negative effects on those important protected areas”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 657.]
However, that overstates the case. The more I have looked into the processes for assessment of the environmental impact of oil drilling on MPAs, the more convinced I have become that we simply do not have in place a system that is fit for purpose, certainly not to protect these marine protected areas.
This is because the process and the responsibility for environmental regulation currently sits with OPRED, which is part of DESNZ and is advised by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, but there is a very complicated and convoluted process and path by which the expert advice from the JNCC reaches the Minister. First, as a statutory consultee, the JNCC’s advice must be considered when OPRED produces an environmental assessment, but OPRED is under no duty to follow the JNCC’s advice, which is also not published. Then, in an instance where OPRED advises the Secretary of State not to issue a licence, the Secretary of State can disregard it if they believe that there is an overriding public interest.
A secondary problem is that the assessments do not consider cumulative impacts in a robust way. For example, OPRED will look at a pipeline and say, “Well, a pipeline in the grand area of an MPA is a tiny footprint”, but of course it is not just the pipeline that we are looking at. The cumulative effects of all the different things going on will have, and has been shown to have, a significant impact on the MPA.
The third and final problem is that OPRED assessments often have a tendency to assume that, if there is no scientific evidence, there is no problem, instead of adopting the precautionary principle. In fact, irrespective of what the environmental assessments from the JNCC say, OPRED and the Secretary of State can decide to grant licences to MPAs anyway. Looking at the evidence base, we can see that that is exactly what is happening. For example, in the past three years, the JNCC has objected to 54 development applications in MPAs from the oil and gas industry, yet not a single one of those applications has been turned down. In fact, I did a trawl over the past 17 years—since 2007, when the first MPAs came into place—and could not find a single licence that had been turned down on an environmental basis. That would suggest that the environmental assessment system in this case is not working.
What I find most concerning is that the JNCC has expressed its concerns. For example, in a letter to DESNZ on the recent 33rd oil and gas licensing round, the JNCC wrote a strong letter stating that it was unable to agree with the conclusions that the projects would have no adverse impact on site integrity. The committee strongly advised that no new oil and gas infrastructures should be located anywhere within an MPA. It also pointed out that the Government’s approach to licensing oil and gas activities was inconsistent with the approach taken with other industries—for example, wind farms. Those three statements are extremely concerning. Our Joint Nature Conservancy Committee is making strong statements about these issues and yet, somewhere along the line, this is not being taken into account. Remember that no licences have been turned down, as far as I can see, based on environmental impact.
This process does not seem to be working and will result, and is resulting, in damage to the MPAs, which the Government have heralded. I join them in that, given that we now have marine protected areas in the oceans around the UK. Therefore, the onus is on the Government to show how increased licensing in the MPAs, as part of this OPL Bill, will not cause harm and to publish the evidence base that supports this. They also need to outline in detail exactly how these harms, once they are caused, will be mitigated while still meeting our 2030, now 2040, targets, which we and Defra are very much holding everyone’s feet to the fire on. If the Government cannot do this, the solution surely must be to put this amendment into the Bill.
I also want briefly to turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have happily added my name. We need both these amendments. Without a proper seabed plan and a land use strategy for the sea—I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, were here—MPAs will not live up to their name. We know that we require multiple resources from the oceans around us. However, we need to be able to plan those in tandem, rather than in a somewhat random approach, where one thing is trumping the other—and trumping it sometimes through financial gain without properly considering the other requirements. Until we have a spatial prioritisation plan in place, we should not be granting any licences. We need to know what we want to take from where and how we ensure that the best use is made of the precious resource that we have around us. Until the Government come up with this spatial plan, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned, they promised a while ago, we should not go forward with any of these licensing rounds.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support in particular Amendments 9 and 10, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I have quite a lot of experience of marine protected areas in the south-west and the Isles of Scilly. I recall having a useful discussion with the Environment Agency, English Nature and others about how one applies an MPA to a group of islands and whether one would be allowed to run any type of ship across them. The answer was, “Not really”. I said, “Well, who is going to enforce these regulations?” The answer was the Navy. That was even more interesting, because I asked, “Who is the most likely culprit?” They said that the most likely culprits around Scilly were people in kayaks. If one is trying to merge our latest aircraft carrier with people in kayaks, there is work to be done.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to support all the amendments in this group but I will focus my comments on Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which I have added my name in support. I would also value hearing the rest of this debate.
On Amendment 10, I reiterate the question I asked at Second Reading: what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to safeguard marine protected areas, and why are they not taking the IUCN’s recommendations seriously by excluding MPAs from extraction in the Bill?
I will not rehearse the valuable arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has already made on whether we have a robust regulatory framework on MPAs. From the evidence she has provided, I am greatly concerned about whether that is the case. Certainly, the new Rosebank field overlaps with the Faroe-Shetland MPA—a fragile ecosystem and marine environment. Excluding MPAs from the licensing rounds altogether would ensure their protection and that is why I support Amendment 10.
According to the Government’s own figures, only 44% of protected features in MPAs are currently assessed as being in favourable condition. We have rightly set ambitious and strong targets to protect species and restore natural habitats: 70% of MPAs need to be in good condition by 2042 and 30% of the sea must be protected for nature by 2030. Unamended, the Bill risks making this far more difficult to achieve. Meeting these targets will be ever more challenging, which sends a damaging message to the international community about how we regard our natural environment.
It also goes against what Ministers in other departments are saying. For example, in January 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said during the debate on the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 that
“MPAs are one of the most important tools we have for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species in our waters … Establishing this network is an important step in achieving our goal of conserving our protected species and habitats. Now that they have been designated, we need to increase the protections for these valuable marine environments to help them recover, which is why we are setting this target”.—[Official Report, 24/1/23; col. GC 31.]
So, in one part of government MPAs are a valuable tool to achieve our national and international commitments.
There is further evidence. While he did not refer to MPAs directly, when Defra Secretary of State, Steve Barclay, announced the closure of sand-eel fisheries in the North Sea and restrictions on bottom trawling, he commented that:
“Protecting the environment is fundamental to the prosperity of our country and our new commitments will drive forward our mission to create a cleaner and greener country for all”.
Are we really doing what is adequate to protect our marine environment? I do not believe that we are, because we are playing fast and loose with marine protected areas at the moment. We need joined-up government around our commitments in this area. As your Lordships know, there are so many environmental impacts from both surveying and drilling, including habitat loss and damage; the noise from seismic surveys, which was illustrated for us at Second Reading; and oil spills, toxic vapours and the release of toxic chemicals, with a wide range of impacts on flora and fauna, including skeletal deformities. It is so important that we take all this into account in our thinking about the Bill. It is of course separate from the combined impact of further extraction of fossil fuels and the related carbon emissions on this, our single island planet home.
The Bill as it stands puts at risk the marine habitats found around our shores. We have marine protected areas for a reason; the clue is in the word “protected”. I once again ask His Majesty’s Government not to jeopardise their commitments to MPAs and, by supporting this amendment, to exclude them from surveying and extraction in the Bill. I happily support Amendment 10.
Moving on, I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because a skills passport would facilitate workforce mobility between sectors. One of the key arguments put forward repeatedly at Second Reading was that jobs would be impacted and that, if we did not have this Bill, further job losses would occur. The reality is that the North Sea is a declining basin. New licensing is unlikely to prevent the ongoing decline of jobs in the oil and gas sector. More than 200,000 jobs, both direct jobs and those that support the oil and gas industry, have been lost in the past decade, in spite of around 400 new drilling licences. A skills passport would facilitate that mobility, enabling people to transition from the oil and gas sector into other sectors.
Further, a green skills retraining plan, as proposed by this amendment, would assist those wishing to transition in using the valuable skills they already have so that they can flourish in a new sector—sectors that will be emerging and coming on stream yet far more into the future. Currently, oil and gas companies are not required to provide retraining or support for workers. This measure would be something of such foresight for them to do. A skills passport would help this work- force navigate the transition to net zero so I support Amendment 2.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my declaration of interests, in particular my being a trustee of the Blue Marine Foundation. I support not only Amendments 1 and 2 but the previous two that we have been talking about.
First, I congratulate the Government on the fact that we have these marine protected areas. The Government have also reached out to what might be called the “confetti of empire”; we have, in fact, created an increasing number of marine protected areas around the world. This is leadership by Britain, which is now being followed by others: the French are keen to do similar things. We really have led the world on this; in fact, it was this Government, under a previous mix, who did it. We have this background.
We then have the marine protected areas rules and suchlike, which have been quoted clearly. The words of my noble friend Lord Benyon are particularly germane to this discussion. However, I must remind the Government that they had to be sued by the Blue Marine Foundation to stop bottom trawling off Dogger Bank, one of the most important areas that we have. It was only the court case that managed to get a change in the Government’s attitude. This matter is not an exact parallel but it suggests that the instinct of government is not to protect, although the legislation of government demands protection.
Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister: there is a real issue here for him, not least because there are two different concerns about the Bill. At the moment, we are not concerned with the first, which, I remind the Committee, is mine. It is that, by passing this, we have given up our leadership in the world on the expansion of gas and oil exploration; that is a great sadness and turns its back on some very real progress made by previous Conservative Governments.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know that I have spent pretty much all my adult life in the north-east of Scotland and have seen the North Sea oil and gas industry pretty much from its inception right through to where we are today. It is a declining industry, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, and it will continue to decline whatever we do. The question is: how quickly, and how will it impact the transition?
Turning to Amendment 1, on flaring, as far as I understand it from the transition authority, all new developments that are approved will be zero flaring, so, in a sense, the amendment is already being tested. I do not have a problem with it, but I think that is the case. I accept that the desire to reduce or eliminate flaring on existing fields leaves a tension as to timescale. It would be good if it could be speeded up, and the transition authority should be encouraged to make that happen, but it is not quite as easy as people say, because it has implications for the physical operation of platforms. However, I do not think it is a wrong aspiration.
On Amendment 2, on green skills, we should absolutely be developing them. However, the point I hear every day in the north-east of Scotland is that we are producing oil and gas and it is going to decline, but its revenue, technology and supply chain are all being redeployed to the transition. If we do not have that revenue, our ability to redeploy will be slowed down or stopped, and that is a real factor.
There is huge enthusiasm in the north-east of Scotland for the rapidest transition we can make. Indeed, just this week, one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world has been announced, off Peterhead. This is an investment of £3 billion in 35 turbines and potentially hundreds of jobs; there is huge enthusiasm for that. A lot of that will be going to companies in the oil and gas supply chain. The really important thing here is to get the balance right. If we accelerate it too quickly, that supply chain will disappear. The faster we bring in the investment in offshore, the faster we can make the transition, but it is really important to get the balance right. That is the debate the north-east of Scotland wishes to happen nationally.
That is one of the reasons why I support my noble friend’s amendment to replace “must” with “may”. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill is not necessary because we can issue licences whenever we like, and it has been up to the transition authority to determine whether that may be the case. To those who say that we should not have any more licences, I do not mean to be patronising at all, but some understanding of the North Sea reveals that there are sometimes requirements to bring things on stream in order to facilitate decommissioning, as well extending the life of existing infrastructure. Saying that it is not going to be done at all will probably almost immediately lead to a situation in which the practicalities mean that it makes more sense. So, there should be that discretion. However, the onus should be put on the transition authority to do that only if it believes it is necessary in order to achieve the transition in an orderly and efficient manner. That is essentially why the amendment makes practical sense.
Investing half the profits in renewables is a good idea. I am not sure whether one should be quite as specific as that; however, the reality is that the companies I talk to are investing increasingly in renewable energy because they can see that oil and gas is a declining asset. They know, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, knows, that every projection for oil and gas through to net zero still has oil and gas in the mix.
So, oil and gas will be around. There is a sensible question to be asked: why should it not be ours, rather than importing it, as long as we can do that in the most efficient and least environmentally damaging way? I accept that it has an impact. In the process, we can ensure that the transition from the oil and gas industry to the renewables industry enables the jobs, the technology and the companies to be smoothly part of it. There is a real flight of investment from the UK in this sector right now, because of a combination of uncertainty—the Labour Party’s policy does not encourage people—and the Government’s confusing people, I have to say to the Minister. On the one hand, we have a Bill that says, let us have an annual licensing round; yet, on the other hand, we are saying that we are going to tax the industry to the nth degree.
Frankly, a lot of the companies are saying that the UK does not seem like a decent investment. For those in this room who are not keen on the North Sea, that may make them all happy but there are consequences. It is a successful major industry and a significant part of our economy. It is one of our high technologies. We are the world-leading experts in subsea technology. About one third of the market is UK-based, driven by what we do in the North Sea. To throw all that away, if we do things too quickly, would be a criminal waste of talent and resource, and would be an economic self-wound. We can do this properly and right, in an orderly fashion, or we can try to reverse it, which is foolish and will not work, or we can accelerate it at a level that would be damaging and destructive.
These amendments set the balance, I hope. We can make sure that if we are going to manage this transition and the decline in the North Sea, it is done in a way that respects the contribution that the people who have developed this industry over the past 40 years have given and can give. It would also allow us to develop the new technologies at a pace that will create a viable industry quickly, without causing a huge dip in economic activity and unemployment, which can be avoided.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not quite do himself a service by saying that he was there at the start 50 years ago; I am sure it is little bit less than that. I was very much involved some 35 years ago as Minister for Energy, at the time when this whole question started. There was extensive gas flaring in those days and no value was associated with gas. Therefore, the environmental impact was appalling and we wanted to assess it, especially when it came to the central North Sea. The southern North Sea had yet to be moved forward. The northern North Sea had far less of a problem of associated gas, but the central North Sea fields were very much in the context of what we are discussing.
I echo many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about these amendments, in particular Amendment 1, which I want to address. The important points he has raised go to the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben. All new developments absolutely should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. That is the case, as of today. I hope that the Minister can echo that point, because that is substantively what the amendment seeks to achieve.
My second point is that it is not wise to put equal weight on the environmental impact of venting and flaring. Venting is far worse. Methane is about 30 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, which comes, effectively, from the flaring process. However, both are recognised by everyone who works in the oil and gas sector, particularly the supply and service sector, as practices we should end. There is a clear, unequivocal decision by government and by everyone working in the sector that we should bring these practices to an end by 2030.
The question is one of timing. As I read it—I may be wrong—the amendment is really about whether, two years on from the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we start the process as though it is 2026 rather than 2030. There is merit in considering that in detail, but we should also look at the industry’s capacity to retrofit by that timetable. It may be possible, but my research shows that it is quite difficult, and we would have to move from the current voluntary system. To be fair, that system has worked well. Progress has already been made in reducing flaring. It is down by some 50% since 2018 and we can get the rest of it removed by 2030.
The question is: should that be accelerated? In fairness, I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is putting to us today—that this amendment, if passed, would not affect the new developments that are already being planned, on the basis that there was zero routine flaring and venting, but would accelerate the timetable for the rest of the platforms. My question to the Minister concerns that timetable and speeding it up. Do he and the Government believe, and can they demonstrate, that the voluntary-based momentum that needs to accelerate —the industry recognises that it must accelerate in order to achieve the 2030 deadline—is better or worse than a slower, compliance-based mechanism, which would require a complete infrastructure from government to achieve the sort of timetable that is set out in this amendment? That is the real question. By the way, the amendment is not precise because it will depend on when the secondary legislation is introduced before Parliament, so it might be implemented quite close to the 2030s or in the late 2020s.
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I just add a few brief comments? I endorse what my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have said.
I speak from a position of considerable ignorance. I used to know quite a lot about this but I know much less now. However, it seems that everyone is agreed that future fields will not be allowed to flare and vent and are not planning to flare and vent. So the first subsection of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1 would legislate for something that is going to happen anyway.
However, the second proposed new subsection says that we should not allow any new fields until old fields have been prevented flaring. I do not see the relevance of the connection between the two. If we can stop old fields flaring and venting, we ought to. If we cannot, that is a problem, but what has it got to do with new fields, which will not flare and vent? Unless we have some explanation from the backers of this amendment of why they are linking the two, I cannot see why we should support it.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in this group.
I start with the first amendment, which is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I have also put my name to it and support it. The amendment comes out of Alok Sharma’s amendment in the Commons; it was the one amendment that the Minister in the other place said the Government were prepared to go away and look at.
I take the points that have been made about what has been achieved under a voluntary mechanism. I also recognise that the new oil fields do not have this, but I would like to hear from the Minister and get a response from the Government as a productive one was not really given in the Commons. This is a real issue that needs looking at, and the Government may have real concerns about bringing this measure in for old fields.
My understanding is that some of this can be done by replacing methane with compressed air, et cetera. If there are concerns, I would like to hear them because, as we have heard, methane is 80 times more potent over 20 years than carbon dioxide. It is a huge greenhouse gas and the Government have signed up to the 2030 commitment to reduce it; indeed, the UK leads the world in some of these respects. So it would be good to see stricter regulations written in.
Progress has been made. The Government have committed to zero venting and flaring by 2030. Already, a near 50% reduction in flaring since 2018 has been achieved, but to put that in perspective, Norway banned venting and flaring in 1971, which is the year I was born. This is not rocket science; it is not difficult to achieve. While I recognise that progress has been made, I am 52 now, so we are 52 years behind Norway. These are powerful greenhouse gases, so we are waiting for this voluntary system to come in, but we need to take action: we need action at speed, at pace, to make sure that these things happen. I want to hear from the Minister whether he has ideas about how that can be done.
I recognise as well that the NSTA guidance currently states that there should be none for new developments and it should be phased out by 2030. However, the problem with this is that the enforcement is patchy and 2030 is still a long way off. It is a long time for us to be letting out these extremely powerful greenhouse gases, so I think something should be done at scale and speed to make that happen.
The Government argued throughout this Bill that they want to give the industry certainty, and that is one of the underlying themes behind the need to put forward these measures. My question to the Minister is why we are not doing that on venting and flaring. If this is about certainty for industry, and this involves industry having to invest to change and adapt, why are we not giving a clear steer—clear guidance, clear timetables—on the intention to do this? That would seem to be the sensible thing to do and the thing that industry would welcome the Government doing, so I call on the Government to do that and I support the amendment. I thank everybody who has spoken to it.
My Amendment 6 is a simple amendment replacing one word with another. It replaces “must” with “may”, but it goes to the very heart of the Bill. The story is that the Bill was cooked up over a boozy lunch as a way of dividing the Opposition. Who knows whether that is true or not but, if our energy crisis and energy security could be resolved by a two-clause Bill, I suspect that somebody might have done it before and that it would not have magically appeared when nobody else had managed to do it.
The Bill actually says that there is a duty to invite applications. I listened to all the debate in the Commons as part of my preparation for the Bill, partly because I am new to this place and am a bit sad, sitting there on the weekends, but I felt that this point was missed in the Commons, which is why I tabled this amendment. Having spoken to colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I kindly ask the Government to look at this probing amendment, because it is important to understand their motivations. They are putting this legislation forward, taking parliamentary time, telling us that it does things that are needed and are important, and I had to ask the House of Lords Library for a special briefing on the Bill because I was frankly astounded that it could be passed and never again would another North Sea oil or gas licence be agreed. How do these two things happen?
The Government are telling me that this is resolving our energy security and providing certainty, yet the Bill can pass and another licence can never be granted. I am confused about what the Bill actually does and have put forward this amendment in the hope that there is substance in the Bill and it is not just an attempt to divide the Opposition and destroy the consensus that existed on climate change. This is so important not just to the way we work here or in the other place but to the message that we send to the people of this country as we transition. We had the chief executive of the CCC on Laura Kuenssberg this weekend and have heard Alok Sharma; the Government have had resignations and this Bill has damaged our international reputation.
It is important that we understand what the Bill does if we are selling our international reputation for it. What does it do? What is the point of it and what does it achieve? My amendment is really an attempt to figure that out. That is why I have included it and I will question the Minister on that.
My Amendment 7 would mean that only companies that have publicly stated that they will invest in the green economy half the profits derived from winning an application can be invited to apply. I point out that 50% is a random figure—we can amend and debate that—but I believe in the green transition and in the need to protect these jobs. I believe in a just transition and that these things are extremely complicated. I also recognise that we will continue to have some dependence on oil and gas as we transition to net zero, not just for our energy needs but for lubrication and other industrial purposes.
I recognise that we will have oil and gas licences, but we must act at scale and speed to disinvest from oil and gas. We must leave as much of this stuff in the ground as we can. Once it is extracted, it may not count towards our net-zero targets, but it will for some other country after it has been sold on the international market, as 80% of it will be. It will be burned. We live on one planet and have one atmosphere. Emissions go somewhere and they will affect us. The idea that the Bill does no harm is not correct; it has consequences. A lot of oil and gas companies do not invest in the green economy in the North Sea, and they should. This amendment is simply an attempt to lay down a marker.
My Amendment 8 would mean that
“the OGA cannot invite nor accept an application for a seaward area production licence from a Russian oil and gas company”.
This point was raised by Richard Foord in the other place. It is my understanding that one Russian oil or gas company has a licence in the North Sea, when we have a war in Ukraine and continued threats to our European security. The Minister spoke quite clearly at Second Reading about the Bill providing for our energy security, but these Benches have questioned that because 80% of our oil goes into the international market.
This is a simple, clear, straightforward amendment that does what it says on the tin. If we are concerned about energy security, why are we allowing Russian oil and gas companies to bid for, win and run licences to extract our oil and gas, put it on the international market and perhaps even sell it back to us? The Government would then have to subsidise bill payers with billions of pounds to pay for it, in a vicious circle that helps no one. This amendment is clear, and I would like it to be agreed to.
Of the other amendments, I strongly support Amendment 9 on a marine spatial strategy. It is extremely important, and it is important that we plan for the future. If we are to have new oil and gas licences, it is important that we do not rule out the ability to have other green energy. I also support Amendment 10 in this group, but I apologise for getting a bit carried away and going over my time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by reflecting on the comprehensive discussion we have had. All noble Lords in the Room are looking forward to the Minister’s comments on the points raised.
Just to reflect on the Second Reading in the Chamber, many of us asked then about the purpose of the Bill, whether this legislation is really necessary and if it will satisfy its stated objectives to boost the economy, deliver energy security and transition to net zero. I do not need to go through those points again; we made them very clearly at Second Reading and could well return to them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I was just going to strike a more positive note by saying that, although I question why this legislation is before us and how necessary it is, I welcome within the amendments, particularly in this group, an opportunity to seek improvements on a wider particular area, and we have had some good justification today as to why that is.
I am pleased to have been able to sign the first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I just emphasise that this amendment is looking to prevent the invitation of new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on the flaring and venting of methane by new offshore installations, and it would further require the Secretary of State to prevent further rounds if a wider ban is not put in place within two years.
We have heard very clearly today that there is a general feeling that the damage caused by methane has been overlooked, and this presents an opportunity to address that, to acknowledge its potency as a greenhouse gas and to bring it up to speed, with the focus that there has been on carbon dioxide. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the statistics are quite staggering in terms of the sheer waste every year in the burning off of wasted gas. Just think of the powering of the number of homes times the number of years: we are talking into the hundreds of thousands and, really, we should be doing better.
As we know, NSTA guidance states that there should be zero routine flaring and venting from any new developments—that is very clear. That seems to give a sense of security to some noble Lords in the debate. There was also an acknowledgement that routine flaring and venting should be phased out by 2030. However, I emphasise that, although those words are there, the problem remains that enforcement is patchy and measures are found only in non-binding guidance. I believe that this amendment seeks to manage this situation and help us move forward.
The one point on which I would like to press the Minister picks up on the conversations and discussions that we had at Second Reading concerning the amendment put down by the Member of Parliament Alok Sharma and the suggestion from the Minister in the other place that there would be another look at this. I would just like an update on whether those discussions have progressed and, if they have not so far, would the Minister be prepared to meet with us to talk about how we could come to some agreement or consensus—a way of moving forward that would satisfy the serious concerns that have been expressed in different debates?
Referencing Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also signed by my noble friend Lord Knight, I do not honestly think that we emphasise enough in our discussions around this agenda just what an opportunity is presented. This was the basis of the discussions of the chief executive of the CCC over the weekend. We should be talking about the growth potential and opportunities that should be created, not only in jobs, as we have heard about today, but in attracting investment into this whole area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank everybody who contributed to what I think has been a positive debate on a number of important issues.
Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to prevent the NSTA inviting applications for licences until regulations banning non-emergency flaring and venting on new offshore installations are in force. After two years, it would also prevent the NSTA inviting applications until additional regulations banning all flaring and venting on existing offshore installations are in force.
Flaring and venting are controlled processes to dispose of gas. These activities can take place for emergency or safety purposes, during non-routine operations and on a regular basis, as a result of the design of existing platforms. This latter category is known as routine flaring and venting.
The Government are clear on the importance of having a target for zero routine flaring and venting in the North Sea. This is a key measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from production. We are committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative, which aims to eliminate the practice globally by 2030; indeed, we are going further with a commitment to ending not just flaring but venting for both oil and gas by 2030.
The North Sea Transition Authority’s current strategy includes enforceable obligations on industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a range of sources, including flaring and venting. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Lilley pointed out, the NSTA’s current guidance to industry also makes it clear that all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. Further, the new OGA plan, published last month, confirms the expectation that there should be zero routine flaring and venting on all platforms from 2030 and requires industry to report in more detail, including on financial planning, to ensure continuous improvements in flaring and venting.
The UK’s proactive approach is already reaping rewards. Based on the latest data, North Sea flaring is down by 50% since 2018. The sector is on track to deliver on the ambitious decarbonisation target in the North Sea transition deal to reduce emissions from operations to 50% of 2018 levels by 2030, ultimately ensuring that the UK continental shelf reaches net zero by 2050. Key to delivering a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 will be eliminating routine flaring and venting in a responsible manner and electrifying platform operations to enable this to happen.
I say in reply to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that it is the Government’s view that our 2030 flaring and venting target is already ambitious. Significant changes to infrastructure, which require appropriate time and planning, need to be made. If we do not carefully manage the ending of routine flaring and venting, it will lead to the early closure of platforms—I suspect that some noble Lords would welcome this—and the potential loss of both the appropriate UK production and the jobs, tax revenue and economic activity that go with it.
Of course, as I have pointed out repeatedly, loss of domestic production will also increase our reliance on imports, including liquefied natural gas, which, as we have said repeatedly, has higher production and transportation emissions. My submission is that that would make no sense either economically or from the point of view of emissions. As drafted, this amendment would also prohibit flaring and venting for emergency and non-routine purposes after two years. That would create unacceptable health and safety risks for workers and would likely result in a shutdown in production in those circumstances. Taking on board the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I am always happy to meet further with the Opposition to discuss this important matter.
Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a green skills retraining plan for oil and gas workers before the NSTA could invite applications for offshore production licences. I can reassure the Committee that the Government absolutely recognise how important the skills, expertise and resources of the oil and gas industry are for our transition to cleaner technologies. A report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector.
It is vital that the transition to cleaner energy is managed carefully and responsibly. We must ensure that oil and gas jobs are not lost before renewables and other clean technologies grow sufficiently to take up those valuable skills and workers. That is why we are taking action, including by introducing this Bill to safeguard those jobs for the future.
To take an example, a key commitment of the landmark North Sea transition deal between the Government and the industry is to ensure that people and skills from the existing oil and gas workforce are transferable across the wider energy sector. This includes the development of a digital skills passport to facilitate this transferability, which is being funded by the Scottish Government and industry. We are interested in this work and keen to take it forward. Indeed, we are working with the Scottish Government, the industry, relevant skills bodies and trade unions to support the delivery of this work, which is led by Offshore Energies UK and Renewables UK.
In addition, the Government are shortly due to launch our green jobs plan in the first half of this year, supported by the green jobs delivery group. This plan will provide the actions needed to ensure that we have the skills and occupations within the UK workforce, at the right time and in the right place, to develop our net-zero, nature and energy security targets.
All in all, the Government’s spending and policy ambitions will support up to 480,000 green jobs by 2030. The additional requirement that this amendment places before further licensing can take place would damage investor confidence and cause confusion for industry, employers and the workforce. It would therefore only undermine the ongoing work across the UK and could be inappropriate, given the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations also in this area.
Amendments 6 to 8 are in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment 6 would remove requirements on the NSTA to invite applications for production licences when both the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee of the purpose of the Bill: it is designed to give industry certainty on the future of licensing rounds. By providing industry with this confidence, the Bill will support the required ongoing investment and protect the jobs and skills required to support the energy transition. Amending that duty on the NSTA when the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the confidence that it is designed to provide, and will put these important benefits at risk.
Amendment 7 would modify the duty that the Bill places on the NSTA, so that only companies that have committed to investing half their profits from activities carried out under licences in the green UK economy would be invited to apply for production licences.
The Government have a tremendous record for attracting investment into green industries. Since 2010, we have seen around £300 billion of public and private investment in the low-carbon sectors. According to BloombergNEF, total public and private investment in UK low-carbon sectors reached £60 billion in 2023—up by 71% in real terms from 2022.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was just making the point that the licences provided for in the Bill, where granted, will give exclusive rights to explore an area. Additional permissions will be required before any activity can take place, such as the drilling of a well or construction of a development facility. At each stage and ahead of every such permission being granted, an environmental assessment takes place including, where necessary, public consultation and consultation with nature conservation bodies, to ensure that the impact on the environment, including MPAs, is taken into account in the licensing process.
In response to a specific question, I am not aware of my department having received any communications from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee about the Bill, but noble Lords can be assured that the Government remain committed to ensuring that we meet our Environment Act target on MPAs.
The Government’s marine spatial prioritisation programme will ensure that a strategic approach is taken to identifying future marine development sites. The programme is exploring opportunities to optimise the use of the seas and enable marine activities to co-exist.
Similarly, the strategic spatial energy plan, which the Government will commission in spring 2024 from the National Energy System Operator, will assess the most efficient locations and types of energy infrastructure, reducing inefficiency in infrastructure build. The Bill will not undermine our ability and ambition to ensure co-existence between strictly regulated human activities that may be both possible and necessary in an MPA and, of course, the wider marine environment, including fishing, offshore wind construction and offshore oil and gas, to ensure that we continue to strike the right balance between the full range of our different priorities.
I hope that with those assurances and the explanations that I have been able to provide, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who took part in this very useful debate. I very much take to heart the comments made by those with long experience in the North Sea about the need to make sure that the scale and pace of change is appropriate. I remain unconvinced that the voluntary system on venting and flaring is going fast and comprehensively enough to meet the targets we need. The Minister said that the 2030 target we have is “ambitious”, and others questioned whether we could get there by 2026 or so, which is the date in my amendment. I will say only that the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place thought that those were attainable targets. So, there is a lot to think about and I hope a lot to talk about with the Minister between now and Report.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not in his place. I would have said to him that I take the stricture that using the licensing process to institute a ban on flaring on current installations is not a very elegant way. However, it has one enormous advantage: it is in the scope of this very narrowly drawn Bill. But with that, and hoping that we can have further conversations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
“(aa) the climate change test (see section 4ZD);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the other in the name of Lord Lennie, sets out the climate change test to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3 and 18 in my name. These amendments set out the climate change test to be applied to the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for new seaward production licences. Before detailing what the amendment calls for, I point out, as I said at Second Reading, that this is an unnecessary and damaging Bill. It undermines the independent authority of the NSTA and reinforces the perception around the world that the UK is rowing back from climate change, as described by Sir Alok Sharma MP, the highly respected former president of COP in the other place. So, nothing we can do in Committee or on Report would improve the Bill better than ditching it altogether; no improvements can make fresh fruit out of rotting vegetables.
The tests that the Bill sets are fundamentally flawed, and any tests that we may introduce would still be weaker than Labour’s overall position of no new exploration licences. Labour recognises—this is to reassure those who are concerned—that production will continue in the North Sea for decades to come. Oil and gas will continue to supply our domestic energy market well beyond the lifetime of most of us in the Room.
The Bill could or should have set a strategic direction or plan for how we deal with North Sea workers transitioning to new jobs in renewables, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. However, how we manage our North Sea assets for the long term and maximise the low carbon potential of the North Sea are also missing from the Bill. It does not do any of this; it just sets these tests that cannot be failed and demands that the NSTA carries out annual licensing of new oil and gas fields.
These tests are, first, that the carbon intensity of domestic natural gas is lower than the carbon intensity of liquefied natural gas imported into the United Kingdom. It is, and it always will be. The second test is that the UK is projected to remain a net importer of oil and gas. It is, and it always will be. The amendment that replaced these tests states the following:
“The climate change test is met in relation to a relevant year if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the mitigation of climate change publish a report following the passing of this Act which makes a finding that the granting of additional seaward area production licences is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
It is the Government’s policy to achieve 1.5 degrees centigrade. It was agreed at the Paris Agreement that 1.5 degrees centigrade is what we should achieve. This test is very straightforward and consistent with government advice of achieving 1.5 degrees of global warming. The IPCC has previously said that the Bill as it stands is not compatible with our climate change goals. However, unlike the Government’s tests, this test is not set up so that we cannot fail. If the evidence base was updated to suggest that this action was compatible with our climate goals because the climate science had changed, or because the technology around oil and gas extraction developed, the Labour test could be passed.
If we are to take our responsibilities seriously as a prime mover in the fight against climate change, we should adopt the strategy that carefully manages our North Sea oil and gas production, while maximising the low carbon potential of the North Sea. The government tests just simply do not achieve this. We need proper policy developed in the round for this to happen. The Bill as drafted does not allow for this. It is concerned only with the unnecessary mandatory licensing rounds, and as such is a nakedly political proposal, as has been suggested by others.
Does the Bill even attempt to approach the fact that demand for gas will undoubtedly decline as we decarbonise our power sector and electrify more? Can the Minister say what the Government’s strategic thinking is in this area? Instead of doing the hard work and producing holistic plans, they have played politics with the UK’s reputation and workers’ futures. We can and should do better than this.
As for the other amendments in the group, I highlight those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They remind us that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero confirmed that the Bill would not reduce energy bills, and that that is not its purpose. With the cost of living crisis hurting everyone, reducing energy bills should be a priority for the Government, and the Bill should reflect that—but it does not. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 4 and 19, but I also want to say that I very much enjoyed the introduction to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He said that this is a very damaging Bill, and that is absolutely true—but what offends me so deeply is that it is so old fashioned and out of date. It does not take into account any of the science that has happened over the past 10 years. But luckily, these amendments expose the falsehoods that have been told by the Government in attempting to justify new fossil fuel extraction in the midst of a climate crisis.
First, the Government are deluded in saying that new oil and gas licences can in any way be compatible with delivering our climate targets. That is impossible. Secondly, they are deluded in thinking that propping up the oil and gas industry can possibly be in the interests of workers—and doing that rather than genuinely engaging with the need for a just transition and the practicalities of how that can be delivered. Thirdly, they are deluded in thinking that new oil and gas extraction will do anything to reduce domestic energy costs rather than be exported on the world market to the highest bidder.
Amendments 3 and 8 would establish a climate test, which is very necessary. The UN Production Gap Report has warned that the worlds’ Governments already plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The IPC’s sixth assessment report was clear that
“projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
Closer to home, the Climate Change Committee observed in its latest progress report that
“expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero”.
Regardless of the claims from some people, possibly on the opposite Benches, that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas up to 2050, again to use the words of the Climate Change Committee,
“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
The issuance of new fossil fuel extraction licences will directly contribute towards global heating. The Government will not accept a climate test in this Bill, because they know that new oil and gas is incompatible with a safe climate. If the Minister would like to hear more about this, I would be very happy to meet him and explain it as simply as I possibly can.
My Amendments 4 and 19 set out the just transition test. It is ironic that this Government try so hard to invoke the destruction of working-class communities by the Thatcher Government when they attempt to use oil and gas workers as an excuse to continue pumping new oil and gas, which will further inflame the climate emergency and actually make life harder and harder for people. The choice that we are facing is between a managed and fair worker-led transition now, or chaos later, when the reality of the planet crisis bites even more fiercely. Without serious plans for a just transition, communities will once again be left behind and hollowed out as a result of Conservative policy.
This proposal would require just transition plans for the North Sea workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. It specifies that these plans must be agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions and that they apply to all workers, whether they are directly or indirectly employed, or even self-employed—which is vital, given the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce. This amendment will be a step towards delivering a just transition that would see workers at the centre of transition planning, with a clear and accessible pathway out of high-carbon jobs. We have to do this—we absolutely must, if we care about people and their work.
So, rather than propping up jobs that we know will not exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sectors while also addressing their very real concerns—such as around the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves. The failure to deliver a just transition is not inevitable; it is a political choice. If the Government were serious about listening to workers and protecting jobs, they should have no problem supporting this amendment, which puts job security at the heart of the transition to a green future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 5 and 17, which would introduce a cost of living and consumer energy price test that the OGA must conduct before inviting applications for seaward area production licences. The cost of living and consumer energy price test is met in relation to a relevant year if the production of domestic natural gas will clearly, first, lower energy prices and, secondly, reduce the cost of living.
Originally, as was alluded to, the Minister in the other place claimed that this Bill would reduce energy prices but very quickly had to retract that statement from the public domain. My question is: why are we passing this Bill if it will not have any impact at all on reducing the cost of energy bills for consumers? Some 80% of all the natural oil and gas here will be exported. As we have heard, the Bill will do little, if anything, to help our energy security, protect jobs, transition and help the green economy, which is the energy of the future. Instead, we are investing in the energies of the past, and that investment seems to bear few benefits for people or the planet.
We are already seeing individuals with record debt for their energy prices. We have seen the war in Ukraine and the spike in energy prices. As long as we as a country continue not to invest in energy efficiency or renewables and continue to be dependent on the international energy markets, we will continue to suffer as those markets fluctuate. The Government themselves have had to invest £7 billion in subsidising energy bills—in effect, a continued and added subsidy to the oil and gas companies on top of the tax breaks that they already have. We have the most expensive energy prices in Europe so this amendment simply seeks to put in a test where the cost of energy to consumers should be considered.
On the other amendments in this group, Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would apply a climate change test. I fully support applying a climate change test. The question I would put to the noble Lord, in relation to these specific amendments, concerns asking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whether it is set up and in the best position to conduct that particular test for us as an individual country. I suggest that, if we want a climate change test, it might be better for the UK’s own Climate Change Committee to pass a judgment on whether that test could be met.
Finally, on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, although we on this side recognise that we will continue to have some oil and gas as part of our energy mix—even under net zero—we want to see a move to a just transition. I welcome this amendment as an attempt to do that.
However, the amendment is slightly ill defined. I would rather see that transition come about through the profits from the extraction of this energy being directly allocated to the green economy. So, while I welcome the amendment and we do not oppose it, my personal view is that that is a more efficient way of doing it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I share the frustration of many people that we produce our own oil and gas but base it on world market prices, and there is no immediate direct benefit to the consumer. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the public feel very frustrated: if we are oil and gas producers, there should be a direct economic benefit. Can the Government be a bit more creative and imaginative? They would argue that during the height of the crisis, they effectively used excess taxes to cut consumer bills, but is there a way in which to build in a formula that might have a more long-term connection that would be of some benefit?
It is also fair to say that I reject the argument that because we export a lot of the oil and gas, we do not really need it and therefore should not produce it. Of course, balance of payments do matter. The reality is that we have always exported a very substantial amount of our oil production and we import it back in refined products—more so than we did, because we no longer have the capacity to refine. Nevertheless, one pays for the other, but that is not immediately apparent. It is equally true that if we are producing our own oil and gas, and it is profitable, there is tax accruing to the Government which presumably funds public services or other tax cuts that could be directly connected to the consumer if the Government were prepared to be creative.
It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask why, if we are maintaining our oil and gas production, we cannot give a direct benefit to the consumer from that. I acknowledge that there are real benefits. Those who suggest that because we go for the world economic price there is no benefit ignore the balance of payment effect and the taxation effect. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not in his place because in a Committee exchange I asked him why, if oil and gas is part of the mix, right to and through net zero, we would not maintain some of our own production, if we can do it sensibly, efficiently and rationally while we are accelerating the transition? His reply was that we should set an example to the world, that plenty of other people produce oil and gas and we can import it. I found that extraordinary and irresponsible. If we are going to use it anyway—there is a further group of amendments that relate to the carbon base of our gas, for example—we know perfectly well that domestic gas has a much lower carbon footprint than imported gas, certainly liquid gas.
It is naive to suggest that there are no real benefits from producing oil and gas. There is a real economic benefit, but I tease the Government to say that it might be interesting if they could find a way of making a direct connection that people could feel in their cost of living, specifically in their fuel bills. People would find that an extra justification for maintaining what we are trying to do.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I intervene briefly to express a little scepticism about Amendments 5 and 17. I declare an interest because I used to be deputy chairman of Shell for a time. I think the answer to the very fair question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is that we cannot, unless we nationalise the companies or direct their sales, because they will sell at the market price. I do not think that the condition that Amendments 5 and 17 would impose will ever be met. We will never be able clearly to demonstrate that prices and the cost of living would be lower X many years out. First, one cannot be clear. It takes five, seven or eight years for a project to come into production and guessing prices and the cost of living that far ahead, as I saw at Shell, is not an exact science. It is difficult to do “clearly”—the wording in the amendment.
Secondly, I am not clear whether this third test is a cumulative condition, like the carbon intensity test and the net importer test. If it is cumulative, then no licenses will be issued at all, because that will never be able to be proved.
I am afraid that, for the same reasons, my scepticism also extends to the net importer test. I do not understand the Bill. We are setting out a perfectly reasonable set of propositions for a nationalised industry, but if you want the North Sea to be developed as it is now, or for the development to continue as it is now, run by commercial companies, then the commercial companies will sell at the world price. They will not allocate a little bit to you at a better price so that you can satisfy your tests; in particular, a cost of living test. It does not work like that. I am making everybody in the room angry, because I do not really agree with Amendments 5 and 17, and I do not actually agree with the Bill when it comes to the net importer test.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the expertise of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I think that the two tests in the Bill—which is the subject of this group of amendments, because we are looking to see whether it is feasible and appropriate to add to those tests—are important tests.
On the net importer test, it is fundamentally important as a country to have security of supply. Security of supply comes through diversity of supply, and that security of supply has been shown to be exceptionally important recently, not least with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact that had on western Europe’s gas, being at the end of the pipeline from Russia. It was important to bring home the reality that we need to develop our own energy sources efficiently and economically, in the most benign, sustainable way that we can possibly do with modern technology. The net importer test is important, and I am pleased that it is in the Bill. It absolutely underpins the concept of security of supply, which has always been the basis for our energy system in the United Kingdom.
The carbon intensity test is also relevant, in this day and age of developing reserves internationally and bringing them here with LNG, then transferring that LNG, through a process, to natural gas for power generation in the United Kingdom. If the LNG had a lesser carbon footprint than what we produce in the North Sea, then there would be a very real argument for not having further licensing rounds in the North Sea, because the environmental impact of what we do in this industry is vital, and that is shared on both sides of the Committee.
It is important to question whether we should move towards a position whereby we go to a global test, which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, suggested, through what was probably a probing amendment rather than one that he would like to see in the Bill. We have an important but minimal impact on whether that 1.5 degree average surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures under the Paris Agreement is achieved. We should be looking to make sure that, as far as possible, everything we do in the North Sea is as sustainable as possible, with the lowest possible carbon footprint. As far as I am concerned, sustainability is one of the four pillars for the consideration of our energy sector. We must address sustainability concerns; we must address GHG emissions; and we must ensure the protection and stewardship of our environment. As I have mentioned, at the same time, we need to have security and reliability. That is the second pillar. We must ensure that current and future energy demand is supplied reliably and responsibly, and, as I said earlier, is able to robustly withstand system shocks.
The third pillar is accessibility and affordability. We must enable energy provision to consumers while minimising cost, and we must support social and economic development. That is one of the reasons we have diversification of supply in the country and the free market to ensure that that is the case.
That free market point is important because we need economic viability of investment. Investment in, and the adoption of, energy solutions characterised by a sustainable return on investment is the fourth and most fundamental pillar. I would just question whether we need to go further than the two tests in the Bill.
I have never, either at Second Reading or in Committee, thought that this Bill was top of the agenda in terms of importance to any Government. I am not sure that it is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we can have annual licensing rounds if we want them. In any event, if it is important that they are annual as opposed to biennial, to me, is debateable. The important thing is that all the licences that are awarded must be awarded against a set of criteria; increasingly important in the set of criteria is the environmental footprint around every single aspect of offshore oil and gas production.
We need firm, reliable energy in the United Kingdom to underpin a growth in renewables, but that firm power must be uninterrupted. At a time when we are not moving towards new nuclear as fast as we should be, gas is that basic firm power that will fuel the whole electrification of our system. The other side of this coin is that we are looking for far greater electrification of our rail and wider transport system. Well, for that, you need firm power.
How renewables are at the moment, as well as the lack of good battery storage power—it is interesting to note that the existing battery storage power in the UK covered approximately only eight minutes of average UK electricity demand for the whole of 2023—this lack of battery technology and breakthrough on renewables, without firm power, shows just how much further we have to go. We must have improved and enhanced battery technology. We need firm energy as our lifeblood in this country, not sporadic energy, although moving towards a greater reliance on renewables is, to me, critical. That needs to be underpinned by maximising our gas reserves in the United Kingdom.
Given the limitations of this Bill, those two tests seem reasonable and appropriate to me. I am not sure that the additional tests that are being recommended in the amendments are necessary or helpful in achieving the four pillars that I set out in response to the noble Lord’s very good introduction, if I may say so, of his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all those who contributed. I start with Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which seek to impose a new climate change test as part of this Bill.
I say at the outset, in response to the challenge presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this Bill is entirely consistent with the Government’s target to reach net zero by 2050. Even with continued exploration and development, UK oil and gas production is expected to decline by 7% a year. This decline is faster than the average annual global decline needed to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. The noble Baroness might not like those facts but they are facts nevertheless.
As net importers, we produce less than we need—a point made ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This is projected to remain the case even as our demand for oil and gas shrinks as we achieve net zero. There are already a number of climate checks to ensure that offshore oil and gas activities remain consistent with our climate goals: the climate compatibility checkpoint ensures that the compatibility of future licensing with the UK’s climate objectives has been evaluated before a new licensing round opens; and the North Sea Transition Authority has a specific obligation to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the net-zero target. The recently published OGA plan makes clear that, for production to continue in the North Sea, it must continue to become cleaner. Adding a new test to this Bill is, in our view, therefore unnecessary.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I quoted Alan Whitehead MP saying that this Bill was cooked up over a long lunch and should have been buried before the effects of that long lunch had worn off. Unfortunately, it has not been, so we have to try to deal with it. The Minister appears to be not complacent but content that we are making the progress we need to make. The Government believe that we are on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 but the test would introduce an independence to the measurement of that, through the IPCC—the global body and the right body to do the test. It is not a body in this country but a global body that can measure, compare, contrast and make judgments about whether our plans do indeed meet the intended targets.
The cost of living issue is a probing one but it reminds us what the Secretary of State said in response to a question about it—the Minister has repeated it—which is that it is not the purpose of this Bill to reduce energy costs. Surely the question of how we make sure that we reduce energy costs must be fundamental to all our considerations of energy policy in this country. There has been a reduction since the massive inflationary pressures of the post-Covid years, but they are not low and we can do more to reduce those costs to customers.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the carbon intensity test applies to gas, oil, and any other petroleum products on an equal basis, and probes why the government has chosen to only apply the test to natural gas.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
All the amendments I have tabled here reveal the scam that is absolutely built into this Bill—it is really offensive to the general public—because this carbon intensity test has been deliberately drafted so that UK oil and gas are always deemed to be low carbon, as compared to international comparisons. So there will never be any limit to the number of oil and gas licences issued. My Amendment 11 probes why the Government have chosen to apply the carbon intensity test only to natural gas. It is our first example of how the Government are fudging the numbers with egregious greenwashing.
Why is the carbon intensity of crude oil being ignored in the Government’s test? The answer is obvious: oil is more carbon intensive than gas and the North Sea produces far more oil than gas, making North Sea production more carbon intensive than most of the countries we import oil and gas from. So the Government fiddle the numbers by ignoring oil altogether, thereby making North Sea extraction look like it is somehow tackling climate change rather than pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere and making it ever harder to reach net zero.
The second part of the scam is that the Government do not compare like with like. Despite the fact that most of our imported gas comes via pipeline from Norway, which has less than half the carbon intensity of UK oil and gas, the Bill compares the UK’s gas with liquefied natural gas. LNG is almost four times as carbon intensive as a UK gas and almost 10 times as carbon intensive as gas from Norway because of the processing necessary to liquify, import and regasify the LNG. By comparing UK production with imported LNG instead of all natural gas imports, the Government have added another layer to this dubious test that will green-light new oil and gas licences for decades to come.
The Government have drafted this Bill at an extremely well liquified dinner—if my guess is right—to exclude the bulk of UK oil from the equation, despite oil being the most carbon-intensive component of North Sea production. It is an absolutely outrageous piece of draftsmanship, and yet another example of this Government legislating against reality to create whatever legal conditions are required to force through government policy.
Taken together, my amendments will ensure that the carbon intensity test compares like for like. The amended carbon intensity test will compare all UK oil and gas production with their equivalent imports and include all relevant processes for the extraction, transportation and delivery of oil and gas in usable form to its final customer. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that, if a carbon intensity test is to be used, it must properly assess the carbon intensity of North Sea oil and gas relative to their imported equivalents. It is essential to amend with the Bill along the lines that I propose. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
I speak in favour of the amendments in this group. They all relate to the two tests in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said. The LPG and the UK net importer test are both one-way gates, where the answer is always yes. That is not good enough. There needs to be a proper test that counts the carbon cost of doing these things.
My slight issue with this is that a lot of the amendments in this group are not in scope in this very short, almost Private Member’s Bill-type of legislation. Inevitably, the amendments were gathered around the little bits that are in scope in the Bill to be amended. From our side’s point of view, there are lots of amendments seeking to change these tests. I am not minded to say which is the best amendment to take forward. From our side of the Room, some thought should be given to coalescing around one of those tests. I am happy to support that, but we need to go away and do some thinking to get a unified position.
On the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remove Clause 1, if that were to be pushed to a vote, I would be prepared to support it. The Minister makes a lot of grand claims for this Bill. In his summing up, he keeps saying that the granting of licences do X, Y and Z. That may well be true, but nothing in the Bill commits to anyone granting any licences. The only thing that the legislation does is to say that there should be tenders. The joined-up logic that the Minister is giving us for the Bill does not, in point of fact, bear relevance, because it could be passed but no licences ever granted again. Equally, we could continue to have licences every year without this Bill.
The Bill does little other than to drive a wedge between us and our commitments to protect the environment, and serves as a way in which to politicise this issue in the run-up to the election. That is all I have to say.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I acknowledge the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. To repeat the concerns as outlined at Second Reading, our belief is that the tests identified in the Bill will be impossible to fail and are thereby fundamentally flawed, as my noble friend Lord Lennie has previously outlined.
Amendments 12 and 15 in my name are straight- forward. The intention is to be as simple as possible, leaving out “liquified” from the Bill to include all natural gas imported into the UK. We need to achieve clarity, which is not present in the current wording. If the Government want to keep it in, they should be open about the consequences. Liquified natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas intensive in production than UK natural gas. The North Sea field will not meet our total demand for oil and gas, as we know. We need to replace these tests with ones that produce a proper judgment about whether a licence should be issued. The main consideration should be whether issuing a licence is in line with our climate change goals.
Another disappointment with this Bill, as we have discussed, is that there is no reference to previously introduced climate change compatibility tests into production generally—quite an omission. Including only LNG presents a serious problem. We acknowledge that substantial amounts of natural gas come into the UK from Norway via the pipeline. The production of that gas is substantially cleaner than that of UK natural gas. Indeed, we need to be sure that managing the decline in demand for gas is at the heart of a successful net-zero transition. The best and fairer test would be to consider gas imports in the round.
We are trying to amend a Bill that is deeply flawed, as I have previously recognised. I recognise the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to the Bill as a whole. I believe that this a simple way in which we could make some improvements; I look forward to the Minister’s comments with interest.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, tabled notice of her intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill so let me begin my remarks by briefly outlining the purpose of that clause. Under the Petroleum Act 1998, offshore oil and gas licences are administered by the Oil and Gas Authority, which is operating as the North Sea Transition Authority. A seaward production licence grants exclusive rights to the licensee to explore, bore for and produce oil and gas from the geological formations that lie beneath the UK’s offshore waters, within an area defined by the licence. Additional permissions are required before any activity can take place.
Periodically, the NSTA launches licensing rounds inviting companies to apply for such licences. During this process, interested companies submit bids and licences are awarded to bids that promise to ensure the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources, while of course supporting the drive to net zero by 2050. This existing arrangement means that industry does not have certainty as to when—or, indeed, if—the NSTA will launch a new licensing round. This clause provides that certainty by amending the Petroleum Act 1998 to place a duty on the NSTA to invite applications for seaward production licences in each annual period, which runs from October to September each year. This is subject to two tests being passed: that the average carbon intensity of domestic UK gas is lower than the average carbon intensity of imported liquified natural gas; and that the UK remains a net importer of both oil and gas.
Together, these tests, which will be conducted by the NSTA, will ensure that the annual duty on the NSTA applies only where this supports our wider energy security and energy transition objectives. If the annual duty is triggered, the NSTA proceeds with the current licensing process. It will remain a matter for the NSTA as an independent regulator to decide how many and which blocks or part-blocks to offer for applications—with a minimum of one block—and to ensure and apply the appropriate criteria for determining those applications. It will remain the responsibility of the NSTA to decide whether to offer and grant any licences at the conclusion of that process and whom to offer them to; the NSTA will retain the discretion to grant licences outside of this new annual process in the usual way where needed.
I assure noble Lords that the offering and granting of licences under the new annual process will remain subject to the existing rigorous environmental regulatory requirements. These include the obligation written into the NSTA’s strategy to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the target of net zero by 2050. Indeed, I want to be clear that nothing in this clause contradicts our steadfast and, of course, legally binding commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. We do not need to choose between either delivering net zero or supporting our domestic oil and gas sector; the two things are not mutually incompatible.
Amendments 11, 13, 14 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and Amendments 12 and 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to amend the carbon intensity test. This test looks at historical carbon dioxide emissions from the production and supply of natural gas during an assessment period spanning the preceding three years. The test is passed if, during that timeframe, per unit of energy, the carbon emissions of producing gas domestically were lower than the average carbon emissions from the production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from all geographic locations.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to change the test to include in the comparison all imported and produced petroleum products, including crude oil, and all forms of natural gas. The amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to include an assessment of the carbon intensity of all imported natural gas.
It is important to recognise that the markets for oil and gas work very differently; it is not possible to make the same comparisons for oil as it is for gas. In the case of gas, we have a choice either to maximise domestic production or to import more. The more gas we produce domestically, the less we need to import; that seems obvious to me. For oil, we do not have that same choice because oil has to be refined before it is used. For historical reasons, UK oil is generally processed abroad—predominantly in Europe, where our production supports the energy security of our European allies. So a comparison of the carbon intensity of imported oil versus domestically produced oil would be the wrong one to make.
Turning to the test for gas, LNG has been chosen as the relevant comparator as it is a critical marginal source of energy, providing an essential buffer source—especially in winter, when gas demand is higher. Over the past decade, LNG has become an increasingly important method of moving natural gas to market. This will only intensify in the coming years because UK natural gas production peaked in 2000 and the UK has been a net importer since 2004 in order to meet domestic demand.
It is fortunate that some of the UK’s gas imports, in particular pipeline imports from Norway, have relatively low production emissions. However, it is a fact that Norwegian production, like our own, is declining. We will still need gas in the coming years as we transition to net zero. With both UK and Norwegian production declining, it is likely that LNG will play an increasingly important role. During periods of high demand in winter, LNG is a key, flexible source of supply; this role will only increase over time as UK and Norwegian production declines. Producing less domestically means importing more carbon-intensive LNG, which is why a comparison with LNG is the right one to make, in our view, and why we have included it in the Bill.
With the explanation I have been able to provide, I hope that it is clear why the test focuses on LNG and not comparators with oil, which is completely different, or other forms of gas. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is hard to summon up the energy to rebut anything. What the Government proved to us yesterday with the Rwanda Bill is that they are prepared to deny reality. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, we are reliably informed that there will be a Division in the Chamber in about half an hour—hint, hint.
Clause 2: Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment 20
Earl Russell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Act does not extend to Scotland.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief, as these amendments are pretty straightforward. I recognise that the amendment would have an impact on the Bill but against that, it must be said that Scotland has provided the UK with lots of North Sea oil and gas and very little is coming back to Scotland. There is no allocation of money for the green transition and no commitment to the green transition—nothing flows back to Scotland. There is no protection for the workers; not a single penny that is generated from this extra extraction of North Sea gas and oil is in any way directly allocated to come back to the people of Scotland or to their industry.
The other amendment in my name would delay the implementation of the Act until 1 September 2025. To my mind, the Bill is not really properly put together; it is not properly worked out or part of a full and coherent energy strategy. Everyone on this side of the Room has recognised that we will continue to be dependent on oil and gas, even under net zero—but there is no coherent, conjoined or constructive strategy for providing energy security or lots of the things that are claimed in the Bill. For that reason, there are good and sound reasons for arguing for the implementation of the Bill to be delayed. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to my Amendments 22 and 23. I see the Bill as completely pointless and, as I said before, out of date—just not in touch with reality. My two amendments are to corral it slightly so that it does not spill over in any direction.
Amendment 22 would ensure that the provisions of the Bill are not brought in before 1 September 2025 and are brought into effect only by regulation, so that this stuff has to come to the House again. Amendment 23 would sunset the Act after 10 years, which is plenty of time to waste on this, unless a Minister of the Crown intervened, and it would give Ministers the power to disapply Clause 1 in any year, after consultation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I did not participate at Second Reading. I declare an interest as a Scottish income tax payer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is concerned with what comes back to Scotland. I am horrified at his idea that Scotland should be left out of the Bill.
As far as my memory serves me, in July 1998, in discussing Schedule 5, all energy was reserved to Westminster and, at a later date, renewable energy was devolved to Scotland. So if Scotland does not appear in this Bill and there is no continuing power to develop things in Scotland, this amendment would mean the end of any exploration for petroleum products in the Scottish area, in the surrounding oceans or on land.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate so far. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his proposal about omitting Scotland from the Bill, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his horrified response to the proposal to omit Scotland from the Bill. I am not sure about the debate on Scotland, to be honest, but on balance I think I would keep Scotland in the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I can see why these amendments would delay the Bill coming into effect, which would not be a bad thing. It would be better if the Bill were not here at all, but, hey, we cannot have everything we want.
The Government have admitted that the Bill will not take a penny off energy bills and will do nothing for energy security, because oil and gas are sold on the international market. The Bill will send precisely the wrong signals to investors about the UK’s commitment to the green transition: Amanda Blanc, chief executive officer of Aviva said that new oil and gas drilling
“puts at … risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate ready”.
The Bill has been slammed from many quarters, including some surprising ones, such as Theresa May, former Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, former chief executive officer of BP, said it
“is not going to make any difference”
to Britain’s energy security.
Annual licencing rounds will not boost the UK’s economy, as North Sea oil and gas is already in decline, as the Minister confirmed, and over the next decade, in Scotland and England, there will be 25 new jobs in clean energy for every job that is lost in oil and gas. That is what we have to secure: the transition of workers from oil and gas to the new green, clean energy. More extraction in the North Sea will not improve any security or lower energy bills. Remaining reserves are mostly oil, not gas, and 78% of that oil is exported, as it is not in the right form for use in the United Kingdom. The UK is already feeling the devastating impact of climate change, and granting licences simply amplifies the effects. Campaign groups have indicated that the current licences will send “a wrecking ball” through the UK’s climate commitments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank noble Lords for their brevity on this group.
Amendment 20 seeks to amend the Bill to exclude Scotland. Of course, the vast majority of offshore oil and gas activity takes place off the coast of Scotland to the benefit of all citizens across the United Kingdom. Excluding Scotland from the scope of the Bill, which I understand is the intention of the amendment, would significantly undermine the benefits that the Bill is intended to create. It would risk causing unnecessary confusion for industry and create considerable complexity for the independent regulator. This is particularly true as we transition towards a low-carbon economy and workforce.
As I have already mentioned in previous groups, a report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector. Many of those, of course, are in Scotland, where OEUK estimates that over 90,000 jobs are supported by the oil and gas industry. If we rush the transition, or create additional uncertainty in the investment environment, we risk losing the jobs and skills that we will need as we scale up the clean technologies needed to realise that crucial net zero target.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I recognise what the Minister has said to me, but my understanding is that all the Bill does is require an annual tendering for licences to take place. While I recognise a lot of the sentiment and the answers that the Minister has given me, I do not feel that the consequences flow just from not having an annual tender for licences for Scotland. We could still have licences granted every year if the Bill was not in place.
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his contribution. Again, I do not see how it was my intention to remove in any way the whole of Scotland from the renewables debate, and I am not aware that this is a consequence of my amendment, but I will of course go away and have a look at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Goodman of Wycombe
Covid-19 Vaccination: Coronary Disease
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the connection between COVID-19 vaccination and increased prevalence of coronary disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government are taking action to tackle cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, including through supporting improved uptake of the NHS Health Check England cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is no evidence linking Covid-19 vaccines to increased levels of coronary heart disease. All vaccines used in the UK are authorised only once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the UK independent regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. A considerable number of cardiologists, other medical practitioners and scientists have raised concerns about a link, especially among younger people, amid a pervasive sense of a lack of transparency. A reluctance to disclose the full gamut of information sits uneasily with the Government’s ongoing encouragement for people to get vaccinated. To resolve this, can the Government at least publish data on cardiac deaths in the ever vaccinated and never vaccinated by age group for 2022, 2023 and onwards?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for this question. The ONS has provided this information and made it available for research purposes to make absolutely sure that we get to the bottom of this issue. For the understanding of noble Lords, every medical vaccine has side-effects, but the MHRA has investigated this, and the side-effect that people are worried about is heart inflammation. One to two people per 100,000 who have had a vaccine experienced side-effects, but, for people who have had Covid, it is 150 per 100,000. Having these vaccines is a much safer route to go.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, there is one substance that we put into our bodies during Covid that has been clearly linked to thousands of excess deaths: alcohol. Are the Government carrying out studies into what happened with alcohol consumption during the pandemic, who was most at risk and how we can ensure that in any future pandemics we do not see excess deaths? We are talking about 2,500 excess deaths during 2022.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. There were much wider effects and impacts in the lockdown, and alcohol intake was one of them; mental health, particularly of our children, was another. My sincere hope is that these are the kinds of issues that the Covid inquiry should really be investigating: the wider impacts on society caused by lockdown.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, a recent study published in Vaccine of a cohort of 99 million people who were vaccinated with one of the vaccines—either vector or messenger RNA vaccines—showed an increased risk related to myocarditis and pericarditis. The incidence, particularly among the younger people, was about one in 10 in a 1 million population, as opposed to the non-vaccinated who got Covid. That should be the comparison, not the non-vaccinated who did not get Covid. In those cases, things such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is a long-term viral fatigue syndrome, occurred at a higher incidence in non-vaccinated people than in vaccinated people, particularly with the Oxford/AstraZeneca number 1 vaccine, which was withdrawn. Therefore, it is a balance of whether the disease or the vaccine will make you more sick. With any treatment in any branch of medicine, there is always a risk to the treatment. There has to be a balance.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am sure I speak for the whole House when thanking the noble Lord for his expert understanding and insights. As he said, the evidence is very clear that while no vaccine is risk-free, what it saves you from is much greater. The very firm advice is that you are much better off having the vaccine.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing transmission? It does seem to be very good at keeping people out of hospital and keeping people alive, but we built the most immense edifice of restrictions around the idea that it was preventing the transmission of Covid. We had vaccine passports and travel bans, and it now seems that both the WHO and Pfizer knew at the time that its efficacy when it came to preventing transmission was negligible. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what his department’s latest assessment is of the vaccine’s ability to prevent giving Covid to other people?
Lord Markham (Con)
The main thing that the vaccine did was prevent any bad effects if you did get Covid. While it might not have reduced transmission much, its main benefit was that it reduced the effects if you had it, as well as hospitalisations and deaths. Making Covid a less serious disease, basically, enabled us to open up the country and we were one of the first to get going again because we knew that the disease no longer posed the high risk that it did before we had the vaccines.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have some personal experience here. One week after I had my first course of Covid vaccination, I had an attack of pericarditis and ended up in St Thomas’ Hospital. I am convinced that there is a link, but it is important to look at the longer-term effects—having an attack of Covid causes more heart problems, as well as having a long-term impact on your general health.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The MHRA study on heart inflammation, which he mentioned, said that there is that side-effect for one to two people per 100,000—unfortunately, the noble Lord seems to have been one of them. However, if you get Covid it affects 150 people per 100,000. On balance, if you have not had the vaccination, your risk is 22 per 100,000. The statistics are very clear.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that we need to do far more on public awareness of vaccines and their benefits? All sorts of people out there are spreading malicious tales about the implications of taking them, whether for mumps or Covid.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. We are all very aware of the damage done by all the myths around the MMR vaccine 20 to 30 years ago and the impact that has had on people. The more we can get the message out, the better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked me yesterday, we have learned that it is about making sure that we communicate to all groups so that we can make sure that ethnic minorities and other minority groups get that information.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, after many years of stalled progress, the rate of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease continues to increase, for reasons that the British Heart Foundation describes as “multiple and complex”. The warning signs of this have been present for over a decade. As this phenomenon did not start with Covid, what assessment has been made of the contributory factors of government policy pre Covid and what steps are being taken to turn this around?
Lord Markham (Con)
Deaths from heart disease among those under 75 are down by about 20% compared with 2010, which is a clear trend. Notwithstanding that, we are very aware—Sir Chris Whitty is concerned about this—that Covid meant that a lot of people did not get basic heart and blood pressure checks. That is why we have introduced the Midlife MoT, which is designed to give people a 10-year risk analysis; have put blood pressure devices in pharmacies and all sorts of other places to get 2 million checks; and have a workplace heart disease strategy check. All this is designed to get that prevention in place so that people are aware of and understand the risks.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we are talking about heart disease, we must also remember pulmonary embolism from clotting disorders, which can persist for up to six months after even a mild Covid infection? A massive pulmonary embolus is another cause of mortality in people who have Covid. One of the problems with the virus is its ability to mutate, but the evidence is that vaccination, even if it does not give you complete protection, moves you from obtaining serious Covid to having milder Covid. That risk of thromboembolism also needs to be monitored in the long term in relation to Covid infections, including for those who have had a mild infection and those who have long Covid.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: a vaccine helped you avoid not just heart disease but all the other impacts of Covid that she mentioned, including long Covid and a whole list of other things. Again, the undeniable advice is that it is much better to have the Covid vaccine.
Expansion of Free Childcare
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implementation of the expansion of free childcare hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that over 200,000 parents of two year-olds are now benefiting from the Government’s help with childcare costs as part of the largest ever expansion of childcare support in England. From September 2025, our full expansion will save parents up to £6,900 a year. Our investment will be over £400 million in 2024-25 alone, and by 2027-28 we expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, doubling our current spending.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the DfE’s own pulse survey from last week found that 45% of childcare and early years providers said that it was unlikely that they would increase the number of places they offer to under-threes as a result of the Government’s childcare expansion. The maths does not add up for providers and there is patchy provision across the country, with the sector still losing staff. Despite the confidence of the Minister and in the Statement earlier today in the other place, is this not simply a good idea that is going disastrously wrong?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have to be careful about describing 200,000 additional children going into childcare aged two from this April as something “going disastrously wrong”. I argue that it is a huge success.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I know from some of the information that has come to me that it has been estimated that we are 40,000 workers down on the target to implement this fully—in a sector where about half the workers are saying that they want to leave within the next 12 months due to a lack of pay and overwork. What will the Government do to square that circle?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The figure of 40,000 is the increase in the workforce that we need to achieve by September 2025. That is exactly why we are having a phased introduction to this policy. Even before we increased the rates for providers last year, there was almost a 13,000 increase in the workforce, and we have a number of initiatives to build on that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the increase in free childcare hours, but is my noble friend the Minister aware that some parents of children with special educational needs are finding it difficult to find a placement? Is she satisfied that the extra allowance attached to those children is sufficient to encourage nurseries to take them on?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that, because this can be an incredibly valuable support for children with special educational needs in their early years. We have increased the hourly funding rates and the dedicated additional SEND funding, but the department is doing a review of the SEND inclusion fund, to understand better how it is being used and whether we can improve on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been asked many times about the apparent disconnection between the aspiration of this policy—which is admirable, as I have said before, and I think that most people would agree—and the ability of the sector to deliver it, and it has come up again today. If, for example, she had in her family a young person who was thinking about making a career in early years work, would she recommend them to do so? Where would she expect them to find the best career opportunities in the next three or four years?
Baroness Barran (Con)
First, it is more than an aspiration. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State talked about aiming for 150,000 additional children taking up the entitlement offer in April. As I said, we are at just over 200,000, and we think that that number will continue to tick up, so it is more than an aspiration. Secondly, I was genuinely having this conversation at dinner with a friend, whose granddaughter was thinking about what to do with her career. There are fantastic opportunities in early years and childcare, such as apprenticeships and bootcamps, and we are introducing a route for people with experience but perhaps not the same formal qualifications. These are for all age groups and stages, and they include men as well as women.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the increase in free childcare hours is a welcome development, especially for families with the least and with the greatest needs. It is a step along the way. Could the Minister assure the House that there are plans in place to extend the facilities across the country, to make sure that there is availability of these important services?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that one part of delivering this is to do with workforce, and we are focused on delivering that, but the other part is to do with the physical buildings and facilities, particularly for much younger children. We have supported local authorities with £100 million of capital funding and we are also testing a pilot in school and college facilities where they have spare space, to determine how that might be made suitable for childcare provision.
Care Worker Visa Regime
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the care worker visa regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government introduced changes to the visa requirements for how carers can be recruited to the UK on 11 March. The Home Office worked with the Department of Health and Social Care to implement these measures. We will continue to keep all visa routes under review, and will consider changes where appropriate.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the already beleaguered and inadequate social care workforce needs extra people. Until we are able to recruit and train them here, they must be found from overseas. There have been multiple failures identified in the Home Office system for awarding care worker visas. It has underestimated demand by a large degree, it applied an inappropriate scheme in a high-risk area, and it has nothing like enough staff to regulate licence sponsors or process applications. As they review this policy, will the Minister commit the Government to working with the social care sector, which is knowledgeable about these issues, to rectify these problems, and to ensure that there is sufficient supply of care workers to meet the ever-growing demand?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Home Office seemed to bear the brunt of the noble Baroness’s accusations, but this was a cross-government exercise, involving the Department of Health, the Treasury, No. 10, the Cabinet Office and other departments. The fact is that the most recent published statistics, relating to the year ending December 2023, show that we have issued more than 146,000 health and care worker visas. To suggest that we are not supporting the sector would be inaccurate—we are. That includes things such as how to register good applications, explaining the rules around genuine vacancies and addressing the mismatch between the actual job and salary, not things such as anticipated demand. There is a lot of work going on.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, there are accounts of care workers coming to the UK being exploited, as either the jobs do not exist as advertised or they find themselves in hock to middlemen. Does the Minister agree that people who come here and apply for these visas in good faith should be treated with compassion? Can he explain how many people the Home Office has employed to help those people by going after fraudulent sponsors and exploitative agents?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right; there has been some abuse of the system, which is readily acknowledged by the sector itself. I noticed that the Skills for Care website points out that this system has been open to abuse in the past, and it provides some helpful links to some of the stories about modern slavery. Of course, the Government will not tolerate illegal activity in the labour market in general. Any accusations of illegal employment practices will be thoroughly investigated, and we strongly condemn offering health and care worker visa-holders employment under false pretences, which partly motivates these changes.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, the charity Unseen and the union UNISON have compiled substantial evidence of the exploitation of some of these workers, who now find themselves in limbo because they have been hired by agencies that do not have enough hours for them and they are not allowed to switch to any other profession. Will the Minister undertake to look at what quality control the Care Quality Commission used last year when it licensed a very large number of new providers into the market, which is already saturated with providers? Have the Government looked at the churn in the number of those providers and how many of them have already closed? What steps can the Government take to stop these fraudulent recruitment agencies operating in other countries? They are fundamentally misleading good people who wanted to come to our country and have been sorely mis-sold.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about activities that have taken place in some other countries. Our abilities to influence those are somewhat constrained. I do not know how the Care Quality Commission goes about licensing. I will find out and report back to her on that. I repeat my previous answer: we will of course go after all those who are engaged in fraudulent practices.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Does the Minister agree, on reflection, that preventive measures should have been put in place? Many unions and organisations are now arguing that no business should be able to sponsor care workers unless it has been in operation for at least two years and unless it has had an inspection first, rather than after the event. Also, how are we going to go after abuses in the labour market when there are so few inspectors? For example, 18 inspectors are supposed to deal with an agency sector covering 40,000 businesses.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I cannot comment on the number of inspectors because I genuinely do not know the answer to how many there are, but I take the noble Baroness’s points. I reiterate that we will go after people who are abusing the visas and the individuals. We should remember that the employers also need to be supported to recruit staff from abroad in a way that meets the needs of those people. Skills for Care makes that point, and I completely agree.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the work of care workers is extremely valued, particularly by those who are dependent on them for their daily living. This extends across the whole age range of the population, not only in residential establishments but in home care facilities. Underlying all this is one of the difficulties: although this care work is highly valued, it is a low-paid occupation. I hope the Government will give thought to a way in which we can improve the status of care workers and thereby their earning potential in this country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I very much agree with the noble Lord that the care workers themselves need all our support and, indeed, our praise for the very important and necessary work they all do. Of course, care workers are not subject to the same salary cap as other workers, so applicants to the health and care visa are exempted from the new £38,700 salary threshold. They must be paid at least £23,200 per annum, so the system, as constructed, takes into account the relatively low-paid nature of this work.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, following on from the very good question from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, do we not have a moral duty and a responsibility in terms of public policy not just to import the best people from abroad but, given that we have record numbers of people on out-of-work benefits, to give opportunities, training and skills to our own young people, who would benefit very much from that and enhance that industry, rather than continually looking to foreign nationals to come in and do the jobs that British people could be trained to do?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend on that. We remain committed to developing the domestic workforce. We are doing that by investing in retention—there is a high churn rate in this sector, as is well understood—through better workforce training, recognition and career progression. A new career structure is being launched for care workers so that all staff can build their careers and more experienced care workers are recognised for their skills. We are creating new qualifications and a digital skills record to reduce the need for retraining costs. We are increasing funding for learning and development. The Government have made available up to £8.6 billion in additional funding over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support adult social care and discharge. I trust that all noble Lords will support the PM’s valiant efforts to mobilise those who are not currently engaged with the domestic workforce.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke of fraudulent sponsors and exploitative agents. What assessment have the Government made of the need to tighten up repayment clauses for relocation and visa costs, and requiring compliance with Department of Health and Social Care rules on international recruitment as a condition of gaining a sponsor licence?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord develops on a theme explored earlier, in a question I could not entirely answer. I will come back to him with a better answer in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Minister in effect embedded the idea of care work being low paid, in the answer he gave earlier about salary caps in relation to visas, does he think that £23,500 is an adequate reflection of the real value that any individual care worker provides through their work?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did not embed anything; I was just restating a fact. Whether or not I think it is the right number for the sort of work that is done, obviously there is considerable variety in the type of care that is given. I do not think it would be appropriate to comment on the number in its totality.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will feel, at the end of this, that anyone listening to the totality of this Question will see that there are very serious issues. The Government have failed to address the whole issue of social care. It is a sector that is failing the country, at a time when we know there needs to be a lot more because, as we see around us, we are all getting older and living longer, and need more care. The Government have now had 14 years; when will they actually address the sector as a whole and reform it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness asks me about the care sector in general; I am obviously here to talk about visas. What I will say about visas is that the Government have in fact clamped down on the abuse of the visa system and once again are endeavouring to protect the integrity of our borders; I am sure the noble Baroness would welcome that.
Personal Independence Payments
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on disabled people and their families of changes being considered in the review of personal independence payments announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, we will shortly publish a consultation on personal independence payments. This will explore potential options to reshape PIP, to ensure that support is focused on those with the greatest needs, and will run for 12 weeks, ending in July. Outcomes for disabled people will be considered before implementing changes. There will be no immediate changes for current PIP claimants. I encourage all stakeholders to input to the consultation when it has been published.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. In his announcement, the Prime Minister singled out people with mental health problems as a particular group that could be excluded from personal independence payments in the future. As we know, these were introduced to help to meet the higher cost of daily living associated with long-term disability and ill health. The Prime Minister stated that people with mental illness would be better helped by treatment and services, but he failed to admit that there are currently 1.9 million people on waiting lists for NHS mental health services in England; they simply cannot get the treatment, because of chronic under- investment by the Government. Mental health services are, frankly, on their knees. Families living with disability are already disproportionately represented among the millions of our citizens currently struggling to meet the rising cost of living. If they are to be denied access to personal independence payments, does the Minister conclude, as I do, that these families would be pushed even further into more severe hardship and poverty?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We need to take a step back. It has been over 10 years since the introduction of PIP, and we need to ensure that our system is fair and accurately targeted at those who need our support most. In the decade since PIP was introduced in 2013, the nature of health and disability has changed. The noble Baroness mentioned mental health, and she is right, but there may be better ways of supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives. This could mean financial support being better targeted at people who have specific extra costs.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, only yesterday in Grand Committee, my noble friend the Minister stated that the DWP is forecast to pay out nearly £300 billion in benefits by 2024-25, a sum which is completely unsustainable if we are to have sufficient funding for any other departments: defence, health, education and so on. Will he please just remind us of the future cost of the personal independence payment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate that there are several reasons why we want to bring forward this consultation, which will be launched in coming days. Cost is one factor but not the only factor, as I alluded to in my answer to the noble Baroness. Over the coming four years, PIP spending alone is forecast to rise by 63% from £21.6 billion to £35.3 billion. That is for the years 2023-24 to 2028-29. That is one of the reasons why we are reviewing PIP to ensure that the system is fair, accurately targeted to those who really need it the most, and delivers the right kind of support for people with disabilities and health conditions.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lord, PIP is not a general living benefit, unlike universal credit. It is designed specifically to help fund the extra costs that long-term severely disabled people have just to be able to live their lives, and often to be able to get to work. The Minister said just now that it is important to review all processes. I entirely agree, so why is it that seven out of 10 PIP appeals are won on the same evidence that the DWP had originally, which shows that this funding is desperately needed for the most disabled in our community?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have already said that this Green Paper is a conversation that we are starting to see how the costs are best targeted and how people are best supported. The noble Baroness will know that some claimants will have considerable extra costs relating to their disability—quite right too—and others will have fewer costs or minimal costs. That is why this Green Paper will look at whether there are ways in which we can improve how we support people in the right way and in a way that is fairer to taxpayers.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, yesterday I visited National Star, an FE college that serves young people with severe lifelong disabilities. Many of them are being subjected again and again to reassessment throughout their lives. That is not only traumatising but a complete waste of time and resources. What will the Government do to take this into consideration so that people with severe lifelong disabilities are not subjected to reassessment again and again, unless, of course, that disability is generative?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. It chimes with what I said earlier, which is that we need to target our resources in the right place and be sure that individuals are looked after in terms not of the end result but of the process. That is extremely important. I will make this point again: where an individual has severe conditions, it must be right that we, the state as a compassionate country, look after them, and we need to be able to provide a better focus. This is, again, one of the reasons why we are bringing forward this Green Paper.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is common ground among commentators that claimants who have realistic work prospects should be offered high- quality employment support. Why do the Government have so little confidence in their own policy that they feel it necessary to impose benefits cuts and the threat of sanctions, risking greater poverty and even destitution, rather than the life of dignity promised in the DWP press release?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, you can claim PIP whether you are in or out of work. More than 5 million disabled people are in work. One of the aims is to continue to encourage those who are disabled to take up some form of work. I say again that it is incredibly important that this is done in a measured and targeted way in line with the needs of the individual.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions that this as a conversation but that is not how the headlines read, is it? The headlines are that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are all about cracking down on young people, mental health problems, people who are sick, and people who do not want to work. The Government created PIP, so if there is a problem with PIP it is their problem. Everything about it is the Government’s responsibility. We have had 14 years. We have a problem with record numbers of people being locked out of work because of long-term sickness. How much of that is to down to the NHS failing? How much is down to lack of mental health services? How much is down to the fact that the systems that the Government have created do not work? We need change but, somehow, it is always jam tomorrow. I want to hear the Government come up with ideas. I do not want speeches that point out that we have spent 14 years buying no jam, then saying that there is no jam, then saying that jamlessness is a problem—but no actual jam comes along. Where is the jam?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly not going to allude to any jam. It may come with my tea later if I am allowed it. As the noble Baroness has alluded to, this conversation is designed to consider what future support for individuals should look at. That is why we are bringing forward this consultation on PIP. As the Prime Minister said on Friday morning, and I was there in person to see him deliver what I thought was a brilliant speech:
“This is not about making the welfare system less generous”.
It is for a greater focus on those “with the greatest needs”, for whom
“we want to make it easier to access”
support “with fewer requirements”. Those who need support will continue to get the support that they need. The consultation will explore changes to the eligibility criteria, the assessment process, as alluded to earlier, and the types of support that can be offered so that the system is better targeted towards individual needs.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does anyone give any attention to the many millions of trade unionists who are paying the tax bills for all this? We keep on about the need to do things, which I am sure we need to do, but we seem to forget who is paying the taxes to make all this possible. We have to have a better balance. Tax has never been higher for middle-income earners. It needs to be put under control.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is right. I have been very careful to say—and it is true—that we clearly need to continue to focus on those with the greatest needs. As has been mentioned earlier, we are due to spend £69 billion this year on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition. This is not sustainable, as the Prime Minister said himself on Friday morning.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 April.
Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 April.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 March 2024 - large print - (25 Mar 2024)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 2 to 17.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill has returned to us in good shape thanks, in great part, to the expert input of noble Lords when we first considered the Bill. The Government have therefore made only a small number of amendments to the Bill in the other place, which we will consider today.
Clause 11 ensures that there is clarity for tele- communications operators operating within the IPA framework, as to which regulatory body certain personal data breaches should be notified to. It also provides a statutory basis for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be notified of such breaches.
Amendments 1 and 2 update this clause to provide a clear route to redress for those impacted by personal data breaches committed by telecoms operators. They ensure that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine complaints about such breaches, within the context of the use of investigatory powers, and grant a remedy.
Turning to Amendments 15 and 16, noble Lords will recall that the Government accepted several amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, on Report in relation to the alternative triple lock process for warrants which enable the intelligence agencies to acquire the communications of parliamentarians. As I set out at the time, while the Government agreed with the bulk of these amendments, our view was that we would need to clarify one relatively small aspect. The inclusion of “routine duties” was overly restrictive and would have undermined the resilience of the triple lock process that these clauses seek to safeguard. Amendments 15 and 16 therefore replace this with “relevant operational awareness” to ensure the necessary flexibility and resilience while maintaining a proportionate scope for delegation.
I turn now to Amendments 3 to 6, which make changes to Clause 14. This clause concerns the restoration of specified public authorities’ general information powers to secure the disclosure of communications data from a telecommunications operator by compulsion. These amendments do not create new powers for these bodies. These amendments limit the restoration of the powers to those public authorities already listed in Schedule 4 to the IPA and those in new Schedule 2A.
Bodies in Schedule 4 to the IPA may use powers within the IPA to acquire communications data for the statutory purposes within the Act. Therefore, it is right that they are also able to use their existing statutory regulatory and supervisory powers outside the IPA in support of their statutory functions, provided there is no intention to use the communications data for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a criminal offence.
The creation of new Schedule 2A ensures that those bodies which are not in Schedule 4 but have a clear requirement to utilise their existing supervisory and regulatory powers can continue to do so, such as His Majesty’s Treasury in respect of the sanctions regime. This schedule can be amended in future via a new delegated power, ensuring continued parliamentary oversight of which bodies are included.
Once again, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their engagement on improving this clause. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments provide greater clarity and ensure that Parliament has oversight of the bodies to which the relevant powers can be restored.
Finally, Amendments 7 to 14 make minor and technical changes to Clause 21 on notification notices, ensuring consistency in language across the Investigatory Powers Act. Amendment 17 removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords and is procedural. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I heard that the Government were bringing forward amendments to this Bill in the Commons, I was somewhat suspicious, but I am pleased to say that it seems, after yesterday, the Minister has migrated to a slightly calmer situation today, as the amendments in front of us are all amendments that we can pass without too much ado. Amendments 3 to 6 are useful clarifications of where we should be; the Commons has done a good job in clarifying that area and that should be noted. I am sure that Amendments 15 and 16 will be an understandable change to the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord West. I would like again to thank the Minister and the Bill team for their openness and their help in working through these amendments and, of course, the previous Bill. With that, we on these Benches are happy to accept these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, once again, I thank those in the intelligence community who defend our country. I thank all MPs and Peers from both Houses for their dedicated scrutiny of the Bill, which we fully support. As the noble Lord outlined, it is a good Bill that has been improved by your Lordships’ scrutiny, and it benefited from starting in your Lordships’ House before it went to the other place. I thank—as did the noble Lord, Lord Fox—the Bill team for their work and for their genuine engagement with us as the Bill progressed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the detailed report that he did, which led to much of what we see in the Bill, and it is good to see the noble Lord in his place.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who were involved in the passage of the Bill. I restate my thanks to the intelligence agencies and law enforcement for their contributions to the Bill and of course for the work they do every day to keep this country safe.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I genuinely thought that I had got away with being the Prime Minister’s diary secretary for once. I am afraid the answer is that I have not.
I thank both noble Lords for their appreciative comments about the Bill team and indeed about the Government. We have tried hard to engage to make the Bill as good as it can be, and by and large I think we have succeeded.
I shall address the specific points that were raised. The noble Lord asked about His Majesty’s Treasury and local authorities. New Schedule 2A has been created to provide Parliament with further clarity on which public authorities will have their regulatory and supervisory information-gathering powers restored by Clause 14. That follows concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, and other members of the ISC.
We are aware that His Majesty’s Treasury and local authorities in particular require legal certainty on the exercise of their pre-existing statutory powers in respect of their supervisory and regulatory functions. Other bodies which have been affected by the revocation of powers by Section 12 of the IPA, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Financial Conduct Authority, are already listed in Schedule 4 as they are able to acquire communications data in support of their criminal investigations under Part 3 of the IPA. There will be other public authorities which have pre-existing information-gathering powers in respect of their supervisory and regulatory functions, but it has not been possible to establish a complete list at this time; instead, we have created a new delegated power to add further bodies to Schedule 2A as necessary.
On the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the existing definition of “local authority” as found at Section 86 of the IPA applies in respect of the communications data acquisition powers under this Act, so it is not mayors. I have, helpfully, been sent what “local authority” means and I will read it into the record. It is a district or county council in England, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a county council or borough council in Wales, a council constituted under Section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 and a district council in Northern Ireland. In terms of the Treasury and what that involves, it is the Treasury and its arm’s-length bodies.
The noble Lord also asked why we are using the negative procedure, rather than an affirmative one, to add new bodies to Schedule 2A. These amendments limit the effect of Clause 14 and will afford Parliament greater scrutiny than under the original drafting. The House did not object to the original drafting, so I hope we will welcome the additional parliamentary oversight that the amendments provide. As the process will focus solely on ensuring that pre-existing statutory powers can be effectively exercised, an affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. This is because the appropriate in-depth parliamentary scrutiny will have already occurred when relevant bodies were given their statutory responsibilities in the first place. The negative procedure is more appropriate as it allows for additions to be made to the schedule swiftly to ensure that existing statutory powers are not unduly inhibited from being exercised. Since the information-gathering powers are necessary for these bodies to fulfil their regulatory and supervisory functions, any delay could hinder a body from operating effectively. These reinstated powers will be available only where there is no intention to use that data for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting a criminal offence.
The Bill will help our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies keep pace with developments in technology and changes in the threat landscape. They will help to make the UK a safer place. I remain hugely grateful for their work, and I hope that noble Lords will see fit to agree to the handful of Commons amendments before us today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 17.
“(1A) In section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the Tribunal)—
(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) to consider and determine any complaints made to them which, in accordance with subsection (4AA), are complaints for which the Tribunal is the appropriate forum;”;
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4AA) The Tribunal is the appropriate forum for a complaint if it is a complaint by an individual about a relevant personal data breach.
(4AB) In subsection (4AA) “relevant personal data breach” means a personal data breach that the individual is informed of under section 235A(5) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (serious personal data breaches).”
(1B) In section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “65(2)(b)” insert “, (ba)”;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) the words from “section” to the end become paragraph (a), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert “, or
(b) section 65(2)(ba) if it is made more than one year after the personal data breach to which it relates.”;
(c) in subsection (6), for “reference” substitute “complaint or reference has been”.
(1C) In section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Tribunal procedure), for subsection (8) substitute—
“(8) In this section “relevant Commissioner” means—
(a) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other Judicial Commissioner,
(b) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland, or
(c) the Information Commissioner.””
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) In this section “specified public authority” means a public authority which is—
(a) listed in Schedule 2A, or
(b) listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 4.
(5B) The Secretary of State or the Treasury may by regulations modify Schedule 2A by—
(a) adding a public authority to, or
(b) removing a public authority from, the list in that Schedule.””
“(6A) In section 267 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (regulations), in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) regulations under section 12(5B),”.”
“(6B) In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, after Schedule 2 insert—
“SCHEDULE 2A
SPECIFIED PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 12
1 The Treasury.
2 A local authority.
In this Schedule “local authority” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 86).””
““relevant operator” has the same meaning as in that section.”
“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (2).”
“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (3) or (6).”
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-II(Rev)(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Revised Marshalled List) - (23 Apr 2024)
16:59 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 19 disagreed.
17:35 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 57 agreed.
17:46 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 58 agreed.
18:54 - Division on Amendment 77 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 77 disagreed.
19:53 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 80 disagreed.
Baroness Brinton
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of the court’s summing up and sentencing remarks from a trial in which—(a) the person was a victim of a crime, and(b) that crime is tried in a court where the hearing is recorded.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will provide all victims with a right to free transcripts of the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up where the trial takes place in a court where the hearing is recorded.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 19 in my name was originally proposed by my honourable friend Sarah Olney MP in another place. It highlights a scandalous failure towards victims, especially in the most serious crimes such as rape, serious sexual assault and stalking. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age that victims are forced to pay thousands of pounds to access a transcript of their own case while defendants can access them as part of their basic rights.
Let me quote:
“Accessing transcripts from proceedings in serious criminal cases is not only a fundamental right of victims but is also essential for maintaining transparency and accountability within the justice system”.
These are not my words, or Sarah Olney MP’s words; they are the words of the Government’s own Minister, Mike Freer.
In order to recover and cope, victims and family members need to be able to understand the reason a verdict has been reached, or the reason a certain sentence was imposed. Without this, many are left traumatised and are unable to move on with their lives. We have heard from many victims, saying they are constantly advised by the police and prosecutors not to attend a trial after they have given their evidence and, worse, not to attend sentencing hearings. Letters from the witness care unit literally capitalised the word “NOT” in “You are NOT required to attend”. Furthermore, videolinks to observe trials are rarely offered or facilitated for victims or bereaved families.
Unfortunately, the Government have cited the cost of court transcripts delivered through contracts with private, profit-making companies, and these prices can be prohibitive. With that, we agree. While the average sentencing remarks may only be £45 to £60, according to the Government, many complex cases can be significantly higher just for these comments—up to £200. The judge’s summing up can be higher still and we have heard of figures of over £500.
We are very grateful to the Government, and to the Minister particularly, for the meetings we had since Committee. We note that there is a pilot proposed. While the pilot proposed by the Government is welcome for these victims, it simply does not go far enough. It would, for example, not support the mother whose partner attempted to murder her and who is unable to move on. The pilot is very narrow in scope, running only for one year, only applying to victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and only giving access to sentencing remarks. Furthermore, we are not quite sure that the Government are clear on what they are hoping the pilot will achieve or demonstrate. We have discussed, with the Minister, the issue about data, and that remains an issue.
Ministers have suggested that transcripts are expensive to produce manually and the technology to automate the process is either expensive or not yet up to the standard. We do understand this point from the Government. This is why my amendment has been tabled, following discussion in Committee. Automation of the process at this stage would be needed only if the cost of producing transcripts was beyond the reach of government. In limiting this amendment to only sentencing remarks and summing up, we believe the cost, while prohibitive to many victims individually, is able to be taken on by the Government to provide open justice.
In conversations, the Government have questioned whether sentencing remarks really present a barrier. We know that they do, and I will give two very brief examples in a minute. Ministers have, on at least two occasions, said victims can go to a Crown Court and listen to the relevant audio recordings from the trial but may not record it themselves or transcribe it. This is wholly impractical, unknown among professionals, and we have never seen it happen once in practice. Having spoken with members of the judiciary, they were unaware that the practice even existed. The victims we are aware of who have tried to access this have all been denied.
The Minister has also previously stated that, in certain cases, a copy of the sentencing remarks can be made available to the public free of charge at the judge’s discretion. If this is true, members of the judiciary whom we have talked to are also unaware of this. We are certainly aware of some cases where they have been refused.
Here are two very brief cases. Juliana Terlizzi was quoted thousands of pounds for a transcript of her trail, and said:
“The trial was a culmination of almost two years I had fought to bring a dangerous, prolific sexual predator to justice. I was shocked to find out that I had to pay over £7,000 to get the transcript and I knew I couldn’t afford that”.
Rowan, whose daughter went through a gruelling court experience said:
“My daughter remains traumatised by her two days on the witness stand where she was character assassinated by the defence barrister.”
To prove the defence acted outside their own code of conduct, the family needed a copy of the court transcript and was quoted £22,000. This puts justice beyond the reach of victims.
There are other victims as well whom I have met and talked to: Charlotte, David, Victoria, Lily and Rosie. Those are not all their real names, because some of them are too scared to have their names mentioned. I particularly thank Claire Waxman and her team at the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office.
I have also signed some other amendments in this group and will be very brief. I have signed Amendments 57 and 59 on collaboration and adding stalking to the duty to collaborate. I have also added my name to Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting a parliamentary report, once every three years, setting out the position regarding stalking. Importantly, I have also signed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 70, about the Secretary of State including statutory guidance on sustainable, multi-year contracts. One of the big problems we have with victim services at the moment is that there is nothing in the medium term, let alone long-term planning.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, a number of the amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornton.
Addressing first Amendment 19, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has spoken to, we agree with every word she said about the importance of this amendment. Access to transcripts for victims seems basic, given that this is a victims Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, eloquently set out her case. Unfortunately, if she is to press this question to a Division, we will abstain. I regret that position, but it is a reality of the costs involved implicit within the amendment. I know that the Minister is going to acknowledge the desirability of court transcripts; I know that judges acknowledge that as well. There needs to be a technical fix for this, which will take a certain amount of investment and redrafting of existing contracts. But it is eminently achievable and I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government propose to achieve this end.
Moving on to Amendment 57, which is in my noble friend’s name, this proposed new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. The Government have previously agreed that it was vital for bodies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. However, the Government Minister, Mr Argar, previously stated that the Government chose not to add the duty to the Bill as they
“have not seen any evidence that there have been problems with a lack of co-operation in practice and therefore feel that the additional duty is unnecessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 29/6/23; col. 258.]
They concluded that it was neither “necessary or proportionate” to alter the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner in this way.
The proposed clause would allow the commissioner to request a specific public authority to co-operate with them in any way they considered necessary for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. It also places a duty on the specified public authority to comply with that request. The clause would increase the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, in line with those of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is the most recent commissioner to be granted that power. These powers are essential for commissioners to drive forward change, and to hold agencies and national government to account for their role in responding to domestic abuse. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to grant the Victims’ Commissioner the same authority. I know that the Minister has moved in a number of ways on this issue, and I will listen very carefully to what he says when considering how to proceed with this amendment.
Amendment 61 is in my name. It seeks to ensure that consideration of children’s support needs is built into the heart of the Bill. We require that authorities must provide evidence in the published strategy of how they are meeting victims’ and survivors’ needs under the duty to collaborate. The needs of children are distinct from those of adults. It is vital that this legislation directs named authorities to explicitly consider this when delivering victim support services. They must be held accountable.
The support that children and young people require after experiencing abuse or exploitation is specialised in nature. It demands services and practitioners that understand their specific needs and requirements. We must support authorities to get it right for children. In order for the duty to collaborate model to be successful, the Bill must direct attention to and seek consultation with those who are best placed to understand the needs of children affected by abuse and exploitation.
I remember attending various meetings with other noble Lords taking part in this Report stage about the very specialist support that children need and the ambition to arrange things so that children have to tell their story only once. That is a difficult ambition to achieve and it works only when different authorities integrate their support, with people who understand children’s particular vulnerabilities. This amendment seeks to address that issue.
Amendments 72 and 73 are in my name. They state that the Secretary of State must issue guidance about specified victim support roles in England, but that Welsh Ministers should issue guidance in Wales. I tabled the amendment on behalf of the Welsh Government. The same amendment was tabled during similar stages in the other place. The Government have tabled Amendment 75, because previously there was no requirement in the guidance for the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers. The government amendment is an improvement to the Bill—we acknowledge that—because it will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers about the guidance to be issued under Clause 15. Nevertheless, I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to Amendments 72 and 73, although I acknowledge that Amendment 75 has gone part way to meeting the requests in the amendments in my name. I will certainly not be pressing my amendments to a vote.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this is quite a large group and I will speak briefly on the amendments I have my name to or on which I have something to say.
The first amendment in the group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is on free transcripts. What I would ask the Government—I think the answer will be yes—is whether they agree in principle that this is and should be a right of victims: a proportionate right, without exorbitant costs and without needing pages and pages of transcripts. Do they agree that it is a fundamental right for victims to have the essence of what is said in a trial that involves them or their perpetrator, to understand the deliberations and the verdict that the judge and jury have come to, in a form and manner that is helpful to them and that they can use? In the same way that prisoners or perpetrators who have been found guilty go to appeal, the right that they have to access transcripts—quite rightly—is completely disproportionate when compared with the current right of victims to get almost any proceedings from the trials that concern them.
I think we are looking and hoping for an acceptance by the Government that the principle is right, understandable and correct; we are trying to find a practical way of achieving a form for that right to be exercised in a proportionate way for victims. While the RASSO model is a good start, it is clearly quite limited in extent. I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in reply, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will come to her own conclusions about what she decides to do.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is about the duty to collaborate. The Minister may recall that, last week, we spoke about the fact that, if there is not a duty to collaborate, certain agencies will take it upon themselves to interpret statutory guidance in a way that is convenient to them, rather than in a way that is aligned to the requirements of the relevant commissioner.
In particular, I mention the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs. I was able to catch up with Nicole yesterday afternoon—I suspect it was not very long after she ran into the Minister—and we had a discussion. The content of the discussion was that, even if you have statutory guidance that says one should be collaborating, the fact is that some agencies will take that on board in the spirit it is intended and will collaborate, while others will say that they understand in theory that it is very important and should be done but will decide that they have other things that are more important, or that they do not have the time, money or resources to respond. That makes the role of a commissioner extraordinarily difficult.
Data is king. Knowing what is going on is fundamental to interpreting what is and is not working. If you do not have systematic, reliable data from every part of the country, it is very difficult to do one’s job and give sensible advice to the Government. It is hard, frankly, to look victims in the face and say, “We are doing everything we can for you”. Despite the fact that statutory guidance is written down, some agencies are deciding for themselves whether or not to comply. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
I asked the Domestic Abuse Commissioner what she would change, with the benefit of hindsight, about the way in which this was encapsulated in the Domestic Abuse Act and the guidance. She said that it is ultimately about accountability in so many areas; it is about who is ultimately responsible and who will be held to account if something which should be happening is not. At the moment, that is quite unclear. Having 43 different police forces, with police and crime commissioners on top, makes it rather difficult. The commissioner’s instinct was that perhaps one should hold police and crime commissioners’ feet to the fire and make them primarily responsible for ensuring that all the agencies in their jurisdiction take the statutory guidance seriously and comply. If they did not comply, some very awkward questions should then be asked of the police and crime commissioner to find out why.
Another thing that would be helpful is something that we have started to do in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have a table which lists each department and ranks them by the egregiousness and inadequacies of their Explanatory Memoranda and the idiocy of their impact assessments. We are hoping that this will concentrate minds because, once again, data is king. It is extraordinarily important that one is able to measure what is going on.
I will listen carefully to what the Minister says on this and to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. From the well-intended evidence about what we hoped and thought was going to happen in the Domestic Abuse Act, we have a chance to learn from what we thought was going to work well and which is not working so well and to try to do it better this time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am so sorry; I thought that the noble Lord had finished.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Nearly—soon, I devoutly hope, but I have more to talk about, sorry. My Amendment 59 is about the inclusion of stalking within the scope of the duty to collaborate. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, I had the privilege of speaking at a conference of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust this morning, because this week is National Stalking Awareness Week. I say on the record that we are extremely grateful that the Home Office issued some new guidance yesterday on the creation of stalking protection orders, which has significantly changed the game. Previously, one had to reach the level of criminality for a stalking protection order to be put in place, but it is now at the level of a civil offence, which is a great improvement that we are extremely grateful for. But I can only emphasise again how important it is that stalking is included. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust made a freedom of information request to every police force about what they were doing on stalking, and only seven had a dedicated stalking officer in place, while 12 of them admitted to having none at all. You have to concentrate on this really hard to make people realise that they have to take it seriously.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will, I am sure, speak to his amendments, so I will not go on about them, other than to say that I broadly support them. I will listen carefully to the arguments he puts forward and to the Minister’s reply. I understand that any plea that involves pounds and pence does not go down terribly well with His Majesty’s Government at the moment, but I will listen carefully to what they have to say.
Lastly, Amendments 62 and 71 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who is unable to be here. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will speak to those later—I see her nodding, so I do not need to go on at length about them. They are part of our campaign, working with the children’s coalition, to better support children through the provision of services and of advocacy for children, both of which are incredibly important.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 60, 64 and 70, which echo amendments on support services for victims that I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses at that stage and for his kindness in meeting me and representatives of Refuge and Women’s Aid in the interim. In light of those conversations, it is not my intention to press any of these amendments to a Division today. However, I hope that, in this debate and in the Minister’s response to it, we can clarify a little further how His Majesty’s Government will seek to ensure that victims across the country have access to quality support services provided by organisations that hold their confidence and understand their specific circumstances. As we are now on Report, I will not repeat the detailed arguments of Committee, but I think their force still stands.
Amendment 60 places a duty on the Secretary of State to define in statutory guidance
“the full breadth of specialist community-based support domestic abuse services”.
This would ensure that victims receive quality support that meets their needs, and that they are made aware of the variety of community-based support available to them. Victims seek various forms of support, which might include advocacy, outreach, floating support, formal counselling or being part of a support group. All of these have a vital role to play. The guidance could cover the holistic support intersectional advocacy that is often provided by what we call “by and for” services —these are particularly helpful for black and minoritised women—as well as those providing specialist advocacy to deaf and disabled people and LGBT+ victims.
The implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 demonstrates why a clear and precise definition is now critical. Under Part 4 of that Act, a statutory duty was placed on local authorities to fund domestic abuse support in safe accommodation. We found that organisations with a much wider remit than domestic abuse, and often services that had no expertise at all, because they are eligible for refuge funding under the duty, have now moved into that area, entering a sector previously run by specialists who really understood the service users.
What we find when local commissioning bodies rely too much on non-specialist organisations—which can be for financial reasons, or because they are easier to get hold of or to deal with—the result is that victims, particularly those from minority backgrounds or specialised contexts, receive much poorer support, yet these are, of course, often among the most vulnerable in our society. The amendment would simply ensure that commissioning bodies have to pay attention to their needs. Although I am not pushing it to a Division, my question to the Minister is: in the absence of placing a duty on the Secretary of State in the Bill, what assurances can he offer us today that the Government will place appropriate pressure on local commissioning bodies to procure the full range of specialist services from specialist organisations that such victims need?
Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to address the funding gaps identified by joint strategic needs assessments and support local authorities, integrated care boards and police and crime commissioners to deliver their duties under the duty to collaborate. The amendment has been framed so as to avoid requiring the Secretary of State to go outside the normal spending review processes, which I hope will give some assurances that this is not about trying to break the bank.
Without sufficient funding, it will not be possible for local commissioners to have regard to their joint assessments when producing strategies and providing services. The gaps in service provision that will likely be identified are already known, and there simply is not the funding available to plug them. Ultimately, the scale of the funding shortfall facing local commissioners —and in turn those specialist services—means that the Government do have a role to play.
Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victim and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, this funding is not ring-fenced to domestic abuse services. Of course, existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand around the country. Women’s Aid has found that a minimum of £427 million a year is really needed to fund specialist domestic abuse services in England: £238 million for community-based services and £189 million for refuges. Moreover, specialist services are now feeling the effects of this concerning rise in local authorities issuing Section 114 notices. This is a crisis that will only get worse.
However, I welcome the Minister’s statement in Committee that a ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies. This could be the vehicle to identify systemic shortfalls in service provision, and hence to put pressure on commissioning bodies to plug the gaps. It could also provide the evidence to justify more adequate funding settlements, with specific requirements to include specialist community-based services. I would therefore be grateful if he could say a little more about how the ministerial-led forum he has promised will function.
Finally, Amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to include advice on sustainable, multi-year contracts with statutory guidance. I know that the Government are already committed in principle to multi-year contracts in the victims funding strategy. The problem is that in practice, this is not happening. Refuge monitors all commissioning opportunities nationally, and half of commissioning opportunities are for less than three years. There is no enforceability mechanism for the victims’ funding strategy, and in the absence of that, short-term contracts are prevalent across the specialist domestic abuse sector. Such contracts make recruitment and retention of staff more difficult as services cannot offer fixed-term contracts. That leaves survivors forced to find alternative sources of ongoing support at critical points in their recovery and prevents services being able to take root properly in local communities. This is why I feel that a statutory requirement is necessary.
This amendment is a change from the one I proposed in Committee, where I sought to put the requirement into the Bill. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the problem and would be grateful if, in responding, he could set out what further action the Government will take to ensure that longer-term contracts for specialist service providers become the norm and not the exception.
Finally, I support other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but will leave my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester to speak to that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly again in relation to the provision of transcripts covered by Amendment 19. I fully understand the point and the force of the amendment and wish to emphasise a point that perhaps the noble Baroness did not. She is not, in fact, talking about transcripts of the whole trial or transcripts of sections of evidence. I could not help suspecting that the costly examples she gave were of much lengthier transcripts than transcripts of the summing-up and sentencing remarks about which she seeks to make provision under this amendment.
To that extent, the noble Baroness may well have undermined her own case, because I suspect that transcripts of the sentencing remarks and summing up are much cheaper, but I cannot give expert evidence on that. Particularly important to some victims is the transcript of the sentencing remarks, because that gives the victim, and those who may advise or support them or provide them with therapy and counselling, an appreciation of what the judge assessed to have been the culpability of the offender and the impact on the victim.
As far as it concerns the provision of a transcript of the summing up and sentencing remarks, I support this amendment. This is subject to the caveat I mentioned at an earlier stage: in the case of sexual offences the distribution of transcripts needs to be subject to safeguards, because otherwise they can and do fall into the wrong hands. From time to time, I have been asked to authorise the distribution of a transcript, and a lot of thought has to go into who can and cannot see them and what happens to them once provided. If they get into the wrong hands, it will do the victim, among others, a great disservice.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57. Why would I not, since it is a duty to collaborate and co-operate? We like a lot of “C”s in this Bill. I also support what has been said about transcripts. It is so important to have the sentencing remarks, so that further down the line you have the time to read them and digest them. I have some sympathy and understanding of what it feels like.
This amendment is so important to future Victims’ Commissioners. In Committee, I told noble Lords that it was time we gave the Victims’ Commissioner the tools to do the job that Parliament intended. I am not on the state pension yet, but this amendment would mark the coming of age of the role of Victims’ Commissioner. It would require criminal justice agencies listed under the victims’ code to co-operate with commissioners not as a favour or because they happen to get on with them but because they have a statutory duty to do so. This is how it should be.
When I met my noble and learned friend the Minister to discuss this amendment, he told me that commissioners had very different roles, and that the authority given to one commissioner should not automatically be given to others. I do not disagree but—I say this with the greatest respect to him—that is not why I back this amendment. All commissioners rely on the co-operation of government departments and agencies to deliver an outcome. They do not, as a rule, have executive powers invested in them. Whatever the differences in their remits, whether it be victims, domestic abuse, children or modern slavery, the underlying requirement to work collaboratively with key stakeholders remains the same. All commissioners are dependent on the co-operation of others if they are to effect change.
My office was asked to provide examples of where agencies have not co-operated in the past. We duly provided this information. I do not intend to share our examples today, but I believe they made the case for the change that we are calling for. To allay any concerns, we recognise that sometimes data might simply not be available or that there may be very good reasons for not sharing it with us. However, the reasons for withholding information are not always explained to us, and we do not always get the impression that agencies have considered whether they hold other sources of data that might be helpful as a substitute.
In conclusion, when asking my team members for other examples, I was concerned to be told that they generally do not ask for information as they know that it will not be shared with them. That cannot be right. If further Victims’ Commissioners are to be part of the solution in driving change and improvement, they need the support and co-operation of criminal justice colleagues. I await to hear what the Minister will say, but I am tempted to support the amendment if it is put to a vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 79, in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would ensure that migrant victim-survivors of domestic abuse subject to the “no recourse to public funds” condition would be fully entitled to services covered by the victims’ code. I return to this amendment because of the unsatisfactory ministerial response to it in Committee, which simply repeated what was said in the House of Commons—which I had already challenged—and which tried to reassure us that the amendment was not necessary. However, on-the-ground organisations—notably Southall Black Sisters, to which I pay great tribute for its indefatigable work in this area—and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner see it as very necessary. Moreover, in February, the UN special rapporteur on VAWG recommended scrapping the NRPF condition altogether for this group.
In Committee, I asked for an explanation as to why the Government have still not implemented a long-term solution for this group, despite three years of pilots—now extended to 2025—which have been subject to both an official and unofficial evaluation, that clearly demonstrated where reform is needed, and despite strong pressure not just from the sector but from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner herself. The pilot was set up because the Government said that they needed more evidence. While that need was disputed at the time, surely now they have sufficient evidence to put in place the long-term solution that is needed. Once again, I ask: why have they not done so?
I hope that the Minister will not try to argue that the reforms to what was the destitute domestic violence concession—now the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession—spelled out in his letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, constitute such a solution. While these reforms extend the concession’s protection to partners of worker and student visa holders, they do not also extend eligibility for settlement under the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain.
Southall Black Sisters dismisses this reform as a red herring. In a letter to the Home Secretary, written along with over 50 other organisations, it makes clear:
“We oppose this so-called ‘extension’ because it creates a cliff edge at the end of three months for those who are unable to pursue any settlement route. They are usually expected to leave the country, which will discourage many victim-survivors from coming forward for fear of deportation, rendering the extension ineffective”.
It is also concerned that
“creating a separate route which is a watered-down version of the DDVC and DVILR model”—
the value of which, it is worth pointing out, is recognised internationally—
“will create confusion for victim-survivors and professionals, putting victim-survivors at risk of not making informed decisions about their rights”.
That is all the more true, given the near total destruction of legal aid and the lack of adequate funding for specialist services that could provide advice.
Here, I express my support for Amendment 60, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, as specialist community-based domestic abuse services, particularly “by and for” organisations, are a vital element of the domestic abuse victim-survivors infrastructure.
Returning to the question about “no recourse to public funds”, the DAC has commented that the revised scheme
“doesn’t even scratch the surface of what is truly needed to support migrant victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The time-limited support of the MVDAC, and its separation from the DVILR provides no clear pathway for migrant survivors to regularise their status”.
She explained that we know that the two schemes
“work best when they work together”.
Far from providing the long-term solution that she and others have been calling for, she fears that this reform
“is little more than a 3-month sticking-plaster and will discourage migrant survivors from coming forward”.
She calls instead for
“thoughtful investment to ensure that all migrant survivors have access to public funds, specialist domestic abuse support, and a route to regularise their status. Anything short of this simply won’t be enough”.
In view of these criticisms of the reforms outlined in the Minister’s letter, from both specialist front-line organisations and the DAC, can he please address their concerns in his response? Will he provide an explanation as to why there is still no long-term solution to ensure the adequate protection of migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse?
Finally, if the only real objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary, what harm would there be in simply accepting it, to show that the Government are at least listening to some of the concerns of front-line organisations and the DAC?
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 60 and 64 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as set out in the register. The charity that I run operates a specialist domestic abuse service. I want to use my charity as an example of why these amendments are needed.
Muslim Women’s Network operates a national specialist helpline. It runs other projects in addition, but because it is not solely a domestic abuse service it has been excluded from stakeholder meetings by decision-makers, and also excluded from funding. For this reason, it is important to define the full breadth of specialist community-based domestic abuse services, which can then be used to hold decision-makers to account if they are excluded from being consulted, or when it comes to applying for funding. It can be quite short-sighted if organisations have that intersectional experience of cases. They also hold important data.
There is a huge funding gap, which has been mentioned. Barriers are put in the way particularly of small, specialist minority-ethnic organisations. We have seen this more in recent years under the current Government. As an example, there are very high thresholds to make grant applications. Thresholds can be so high that they exclude minority groups from putting in funding applications unless they form a coalition, which can be burdensome for a small organisation. The other problem this poses is that, if they form a coalition and there is a lead partner that gets a large chunk of money, most of that money goes out to the other partners in the coalition. That organisation then goes to, say, the charitable foundation sector to try to obtain funding and is told, “You’ve gone over the income threshold; you can’t apply for the funding because you have plenty of money coming in”. It is not considered that most of that money is going back out—this poses another barrier for small, specialist organisations.
These types of issues need to be considered to effectively commission relevant victim support services. I support the other amendments in this group, of course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, principally because it is a good idea in principle that victims should have the reasons why the sentence has been decided. You could argue that the summing up can be a very long process and has to account for all the evidence that is offered; I can therefore understand why the costs might mount for the summing up, but I cannot understand why the costs would mount for the sentencing.
It seems vital for the victim to understand why a sentence was given. There has not always been a reasoned decision as to why a sentence was given, but they are provided more often now, not least because the suspect has the right to appeal their sentence, and they need to understand—as does any appellate court—the reason why a sentence was awarded.
I would have thought, although I have been quietly informed otherwise by a noble and learned neighbour, that all judgments, and the reasons for the sentence, would be written down. Apparently, they are more often ex tempore. That seems a little dangerous to me, but I am not in a position to argue. Apparently, there are times when sentences, and the reasons for them, are written down and published—and there must be times when they are transcribed for appeals et cetera—so, if they are available, that is not an extra cost.
In any case, I would have thought that judgments need to be recorded. If they are recorded, why can they not be shared, certainly for the victims’ reasons? I understand that there might have to be a cut-off point—perhaps for the seriousness of the sentence given, which may be imprisonment compared with a more summary offence—but I cannot quite understand why the sentencing decisions cannot be shared with the victims. It might well be that they do not want to be in court when the sentence is announced, or that they are not available to be in court. Quite often, nobody knows the time at which the sentencing decision will be made: nobody knows exactly when the hearing will finish, when the jury will decide its findings or when the judge will be available to deliver the sentencing judgment.
I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and if she decides to divide the House I will certainly support it. I realise that the Opposition have decided not to, but I am a little surprised.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, from listening to this debate, I am struck again and again by how so much of what we are saying was said in this House during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. We need to listen to and be aware of that. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
I agree with much of what has been said this afternoon. I will briefly add my voice in support of Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name. I simply echo her frustration that we are no further forward in securing a long-term solution for migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. I raised this during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. As has been said, we were told then that the Government needed more evidence before implementing policy change, and here we are three years later, with so much evidence produced, both officially and unofficially, about the need for reform but a reluctance from the Government to make the much-needed change. I simply hope that the Minister might answer the very valid questions raised by the noble Baroness, especially on the inadequacy of the reform to the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 19 and her passionate and common-sense contribution, which I hope the Minister will consider. I will speak on Amendments 62 and 71, to which I have put my name.
Child abuse and exploitation affects hundreds of thousands of children across this country each year. Sadly, any child, in any place, can be a victim of abuse. Children are also disproportionately impacted by abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that children are the victims of 40% of sexual offences. Being a victim of abuse has a devastating effect on children, with the impacts often staying with them for the rest of their lives. Yes, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Despite this, we are leaving our most vulnerable children without access to essential child-specific victim support services and child-specific victim support roles. It is key that, when commissioners decide what services and roles to commission to support victims, they must pay attention and due regard to the need for child-specific victim support services and roles to meet the need in their local area.
That is why I put my name to Amendments 62 and 71. These amendments would strengthen the duty to collaborate in the Bill and have a huge impact for children who have experienced the most horrific crimes. Child-specific victim support services play a crucial role in helping a child to start to recover from abuse and trauma, giving children a space to work through their trauma and offering mental health and counselling services.
However, support services are hugely underfunded and undervalued, and children are facing a postcode lottery in accessing them. Recent research by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that across England and Wales there are only 468 services providing support to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This is despite an estimated half a million children suffering from some form of sexual abuse every year. Barnardo’s, which offers child sexual exploitation services—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has found that an additional 1,900 child independent domestic violence advisers and almost 500 child independent sexual violence advisers are needed across England and Wales to support the number of identified child victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this group but, having heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I want to add my 100% support for what she has just said. As a family judge for something like 35 years, I tried cases of sexual abuse against children. I also happened to do a report on the diocese of Chichester, and I met adult members of that group who had suffered serious sexual abuse. It lasts a lifetime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. I particularly realised it when I met these young men who had suffered abuse from clergy, I am sad to say—one of whom went to prison and one of whom died before. It lasted years and years. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, is entirely right, and I support it tremendously.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I was surprised when there seemed to be a hiatus—I had not allowed for his need to draw a breath. He mentioned his conversation this morning with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I am not surprised to hear what she said. I recall that, before the Bill even arrived in this House, she was making her views about a duty to collaborate very clear and well known.
I simply wanted to support my noble friend in her amendment on transcripts. I have to say that sitting through most of the Committee and Second Reading of this Bill has really made me reflect on how victims can be treated as almost peripheral to a trial, because inevitably there is a focus on the defendant. It is inevitable because the court is determining guilt or—I was going to say innocence—not guilt. It would never have occurred to me that the availability of a transcript might depend on whether it has to be available to the defendant.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, this is quite a narrow amendment. The Minister was very clear about the constraints and difficulties. As well as being narrow, this amendment would reduce costs, which we were talking about at the previous stage. It is important that we pursue this.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and Amendments 62 and 71, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. In this, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
The great thing about following the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is that it is like somebody doing your homework for you. All the way through this stage of the Bill, we have talked about children as being separate victims, and we got the “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” reason back—in that, if you have to mention one, you have to mention all in this. I think we have to be specific. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I went to the Lighthouse child house and saw its model. We saw how, when victims are treated specifically, we can get higher levels of prosecution, better health for them in future and save money in the outcome. Why would you not do that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I first bring forth the Government’s Amendment 75, which requires that Welsh Ministers be consulted on any guidance on victim support roles under Clause 15, so far as the content relates to devolved matters. Victim support roles may operate across criminal justice settings and include devolved health and local authority responsibilities. It is therefore right and entirely in line with the devolution settlement that Welsh Ministers are properly and fully consulted and that the Welsh context is properly reflected in the resulting guidance that will flow from that. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his Amendments 72 and 73, which relate to this matter. It is the Government’s view that government Amendment 75 covers that ground and that it is no longer necessary for the noble Lord to press his amendment in this respect.
Amendment 61 is about consultation with providers who are under a duty to collaborate. It would create a mandatory requirement for relevant authorities to consult those providing support to child victims during the formulation of their strategy under Clause 13. We have just heard moving contributions on children. As I said last week during the debate, the Government have been clear throughout Part 1 that the distinct needs of children should indeed be taken into account. That is reflected in particular in Clauses 13(4) and 15(5), which specifically relate to children, now defined as individuals under the age of 18. Those clauses, among other things, require the commissioners to make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of relevant victims, which will expressly include children. The guidance will underpin that duty and set out best practice for consulting child victims and those who provide services to such victims.
We have fully discussed children. I do not think I need repeat anything that I have already said. The position of children is very widely recognised. Therefore, in the Government’s view, Amendment 61 is overtaken by the provisions that already exist in the Bill and what has already been said on behalf of the Government in this respect.
I come to Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which relates to support for victims with no recourse to public funds. I thank her for tabling that amendment. The code is clear that victims are entitled to access services, including support services, under the code regardless of their resident status. As has been mentioned, there is also access to funding and support through the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. That mechanism was expanded last February to give victims who are here as the partner of a worker or student a short period of lawful status, financial stability and support while they consider their future options. That is a major extension of the concession that was first introduced in 2012.
Of course, the Government have heard the concerns raised about the need for a longer-term solution in this matter. Basically, two points arise. First, this is not that easy to address in the context of the wider immigration system and immigration policy. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a risk of creating a route that is attractive to some who seek to shortcut or abuse the immigration system, rather than the genuine victims of domestic abuse whom we all seek to support. That has to be worked through. However, if I may speak frankly, while the Government will of course continue to support this important matter, which has been raised many times in recent years, resources are not unlimited and this must now take its place in the next spending review. No doubt the Government will then come to a view as to how resources are allocated.
In the meantime, there is support under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. There is also the support for the migrant victim scheme, which provides wraparound support, including accommodation, subsistence and counselling to victims with no recourse to public funds. As I understand it, that has supported over 1,200 victims since April 2021. I would like to go further towards the noble Baroness and others who have supported this amendment, but I hope that what I have been able to say will at least persuade her not to press it further.
I come now to Amendments 60, 64, 66 and 67, which variously relate to guidance defining specialist community-based services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and so on, as well as the funding gap, a requirement that sufficient funding is provided annually to the relevant authorities to commission the relevant victim support services, and the establishment of cross-government “by and for” funding services. It is quite a large group, but your Lordships will have the general picture.
First, I very much thank the right reverend Prelate and others for their engagement on these amendments, along with representatives from the sector. Of course, the duty to collaborate under the Bill will need to have regard to the joint needs assessments, and the local strategies, which will be published, should include evidence of how the relevant authorities have carried out their needs assessments, as well as how those assessments have informed commissioning decisions.
I can commit that noble Lords will see in the draft guidance, shortly to be available, that it will set a clear expectation for local commissioners to share both a self-contained joint needs assessment document and joint strategies with the Ministry of Justice to enable the Government to bring together local intelligence on need. I very much hope and expect that this will provide the national framework for addressing the problems raised in this debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group, and particularly the Minister for his response. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his clarification of which parts of the court process are concerned. I was quoting both the judge’s summing up and judgment as well as the bigger costs for a wider trial transcript. I was trying to make the point that it can be asked for now but it is entirely at the judge’s discretion whether it happens and therein lies the problem, which is why we find ourselves here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his help. He said: why can sentencing not be shared? I think that is one of the key points here.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation but the difference between my amendment and the pilot is that the pilot remains at the judge’s discretion, which means that it becomes very difficult to collect any data on the efficacy of allowing victims to have these decisions at the point of judgment.
I was very moved by the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, relating to Amendment 57 —which I did not comment on earlier—and if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support her.
I believe that victims need to see progress in this area. I recognise that my amendment is not what they really want but it would be a step forward and, on that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
“(8A) The victims’ code may make different provision for different areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change to reflect current practice not to treat provision for different areas as provision for different purposes.
“(8A) In considering whether to exercise the power in subsection (8)(a), the Secretary of State must have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when considering whether to make different provision in the victims’ code for victims of different descriptions, to have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Clauses 5 to 10.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, and(c) the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 4, page 4, line 22, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 3, page 3, line 28, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) Where the victims’ code makes provision about a service to be provided to victims by a person, the person must provide the service in accordance with the code unless the person has good reasons not to. (A2) Any person who is subject to the duty in subsection (A1) and is not an individual must ensure that procedures are in place by which other persons may complain about an alleged failure to comply with the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires persons specified in the victims’ code to provide services in accordance with it, unless they have good reasons not to, and to have procedures for dealing with complaints.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bach
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the creation of a unique identifier for victims in the criminal justice system which would be linked to information on compliance to the victims’ code.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 35 would require information on compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for supporting this amendment. Members may recall the helpful discussion on this issue in Committee. I am grateful to colleagues and to the Minister for their engagement on this topic.
I have been moved to reintroduce this amendment because I remain convinced that, without this change, the Government’s ambition to harness the Bill to put victims at the heart of the justice system and increase accountability may well fail; it is that serious. I thank Natalie Byrom, whose article in the Financial Times in January 2024 kicked off this important debate.
I begin by being extremely clear about what is being proposed. Put simply, this amendment contemplates the creation of a unique identifier allocated to victims at the point at which they first report a crime to the police, to which all subsequent crime numbers and case updates can be linked. Compliance with the measures in the victims’ code must also be recorded against this identifier. Information about the victim’s demographic and protected characteristics can also be added to the victim identifier, provided that the victim consents to provide this. In the absence of the introduction of this identifier, it will continue to be impossible to routinely link information on victims’ code compliance to the demographic characteristics of victims or criminal justice outcomes. This makes it impossible to tell what measures are working and for whom. Information will remain partial, piecemeal and costly to collect.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this, with a slightly heavy heart. It has the virtue of common sense, which I feel might not necessarily chime terribly well with the Front Bench; it seems eminently sensible. I realise that the Minister often talks about the need to join the dots, and I think this is a textbook example of a challenge of trying to join up a great many dots that are all over the place at the moment.
I recognise that the Front Bench is not going to stand up and say, “What a wonderful idea; we will do it immediately”. At the very least, if there is an acknowledgement of the fact that we have a problem—and I think we all agree that the status quo at the moment, as far as victims are concerned, is a long way from where we would wish it to be—it behoves the Government to think about putting together a properly resourced project to look at this systematically, across all the different agencies, and at least analyse the scale and complexity of the problem and perhaps come up with a range of two or three possible solutions, with the pros and cons of each, the costs and the time they would take to implement. We would then, at least, have a better handle on how we might deal with this problem, which we all acknowledge is a problem.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is important to acknowledge that we need to improve the kind of data collection that we have. This is a really good idea, and I would like it to be pursued. I have an amendment later on consistency of data. One of the things I felt when I was looking at the issues was that, too often, victims are not counted properly. We know that there is a range of ways to produce crime statistics: discussions about victims can be very emotive and subjective. The more accurate information we have and the more rationally collected it is—a point was made about common sense—the better it is for society, so that it cannot be turned into a political football. We would know exactly what was going on, so that the right kind of research and resources could be allocated. I would like to hear from the Minister some ideas about at least being open to this and experimenting with it. It is eminently worth exploring further, and I would like to hear a positive response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on this issue, and I continue to offer our support from these Benches. I will not repeat the detail of what I said, but through the passage of the Children and Families Act we had to make sure that there was specific identifying data to link up children who were having to access services in more than one department. That picks up very much on a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Russell, about the complexity of data.
There has been a really good period between Committee and Report in which the Minister and other Ministers have made themselves available for discussing lots of these amendments, but the main problem is that we do not have a lot of data about victims. We have plenty of data about crime, but we just do not understand victims’ experience through data. One of the side benefits of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is that having that unique identifying number will create automatic access to make assessments, while protecting GDPR. I have spoken about that on other Bills, but it is important. I hope that this Government and any future Government will assess this as a key part of better services for victims, because we will better know and understand who they are.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. As he said, we had a helpful discussion on this proposal in Committee. The unique identifier for victims is a good idea and may well solve a lot of problems. As he said, why not harness this Bill to do it?
I will briefly repeat a point I made in Committee. I strongly suspect that this is a more difficult problem than it might seem on the surface, given that there are different computing systems in different parts of the system and different ways of collating data. It is a problem. I am well aware of the shortcomings of data retention within the wider criminal justice system. When I sit in a magistrates’ court, I see the PNC for offenders; very often, they will have multiple dates of birth and names. One only hopes that one is dealing with the same individual as recorded on the police national computer. There is a single identifier for the offender, but there may be a fair number of errors in there as well.
Nevertheless, it is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that it has the virtue of common sense; I almost thought he was going to say that it has the vice of common sense. It needs to be considered carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we want to hear that the Government are taking this seriously and that there is a programme in place to look at this seriously and try to help victims through this mechanism.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his amendment, which seeks to introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collection and sharing of code compliance information.
The Government agree that data is a vital tool to help better understand victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and whether and how they are receiving the relevant entitlements under the victims’ code. That is precisely why the Bill also introduces duties on criminal justice agencies to collect, share and jointly review code compliance information.
In addition, to respond to the questions and comments of many noble Lords, our existing Better Outcomes through Linked Data, or BOLD, programme is already exploring linking system data about victims’ interactions to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. The BOLD programme is funded by HM Treasury’s shared outcomes fund from 2021 to 2024; it is a long-term project conducted by the Ministry of Justice to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. BOLD has just received an extra year’s funding to continue exploring data and data linking until March 2025. It has been created to demonstrate how people with complex needs can be better supported by linking and improving the government data held on them in a safe and secure way.
The Ministry of Justice is leading on a victims’ pilot that seeks to share and link data to help improve outcomes for victims. We hope that it will unlock insights into supporting victims of crime, such as understanding their end-to-end journeys and experiences, the effectiveness of victim services and the factors behind victim attrition rates at different stages of the criminal justice system. This is a proof-of-concept research project, and findings on the BOLD victims’ pilot will be published in 2024 and 2025. The pilot has initially focused on exploring what data is available in both criminal justice system agencies and victim services, particularly at a local level through partnership with Synergy Essex, a partnership of rape and sexual abuse centres in Essex.
The pilot work is a necessary precursor to data linking, and this essential precursor work should be completed first. As BOLD shares findings and as the duties in the Bill begin to be operationalised by bodies, the emergent picture will inform future innovation on how data can be used to improve the victim experience. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I say that this demonstrates the Government acknowledging and addressing the issue.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response. I also thank noble Lords around the House who have been sympathetic to the amendment that I moved.
Because it is such common sense, this will happen in time. The sooner it happens, the better for victims and the justice system. I am realistic, so I understand that there are complications, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, that will have to be worked through before we get to the stage—which I hope will happen sooner rather than later—where something like this comes into being.
For the moment, I am delighted to hear that the Government understand the problem and are working hard to solve it. There is a real issue as to whether the BOLD development is the answer to the issue that I have tried to raise today. I ask the Government to look very carefully at whether that is a better alternative to the proposal I made today. It seems to me that it would not be sensible to divide the House on the issue, however much I might be tempted to do so, because there is more work to be done. However, I go away with the feeling that the Government are sympathetic to the idea that this whole system should be very much simplified. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 6.
“Arrangements for collection of victims’ feedback(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made arrangements with a person for the collection by the person of information which—(a) relates to the characteristics or experiences of users of services provided by a relevant criminal justice body in a police area, and (b) is collected for the purposes of assessing whether and how those services are provided in accordance with the duty in section 5(A1).(2) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General may by a joint direction require the body to provide specified information to the person for the purposes of enabling or assisting the performance of the arrangements.(3) A relevant criminal justice body which is directed to provide information under this section must provide it—(a) in such form and manner as may be specified, and(b) at such times or within such periods as may be specified.(4) In this section—“relevant criminal justice body” means a criminal justice body falling within paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of the definition of “criminal justice body” in section 6(6);“specified” means specified in the direction.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 6, requires certain criminal justice bodies to cooperate with persons with whom the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the collection of feedback from victims, if directed to do so.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 7.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 8.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 9.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly, must—(a) keep under review the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) annually, prepare and publish a report about the code compliance of those persons in the period to which the report relates.(A2) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General agree that the code compliance of a person mentioned in subsection (1) is unsatisfactory they may—(a) if the person is the chief officer of police for a police area, give the elected local policing body for the area a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view;(b) in any other case, give the person a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view.(A3) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General give a notice under subsection (A2) they must—(a) if the notice is given under paragraph (a) of that subsection, send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police to whom the notice relates, and(b) in any case, publish the notice in such form and manner as they consider appropriate.(A4) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses before—(a) publishing a report under subsection (A1)(b);(b) giving a notice under subsection (A2).(A5) The Secretary of State must publish such compliance information as the Secretary of State considers will enable members of the public to assess the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in the period to which the information relates.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State and the Attorney General joint functions in relation to reviewing compliance with the victims’ code by police forces and other criminal justice bodies. The Secretary of State must also publish certain information in relation to the code compliance of such bodies.
“(1) The persons are—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new Clause to be inserted after Clause 6.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
“(3A) The first report under paragraph (b) of subsection (A1) may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which that paragraph comes into force.(3B) Subsequent reports must relate to the 12 month period immediately following the 12 month period to which the previous report relates.(3C) The Secretary of State must lay each report before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before issuing guidance under Clause 11 on raising awareness of, and reviewing compliance with, the victims’ code.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by section 6(6);(b) the Parole Board;(c) an elected local policing body;(d) the British Transport Police Force;(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of subsection (4)(a);(c) vary any description of a public authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would create a duty for specified public authorities to collaborate with the Victims and Witnesses Commissioner.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Training: support for victims(1) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing mandatory training on the contents and application of the victims’ code for relevant staff of the following organisations—(a) the police,(b) the Crown Prosecution Service,(c) probation services,(d) the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office,(e) health and social services,(f) victim support services, (g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education, and(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must be reviewed and updated every three years.”Member's explanatory statement
To ensure justice agencies responsible for giving effect to the Victims Code are properly trained and familiar with its provisions and deliver it effectively.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we debated this amendment on the first day on Report last week. It is to do with training. All of the discussions that I have had in the intervening time with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and with others, demonstrated the overwhelming importance of training, and the lack of training being a common theme, again and again, when things go wrong for victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
“(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before issuing guidance under this section, so far as the guidance relates to a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers about guidance to be issued under Clause 15, so far as it relates to a matter provision about which would be in the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Lord Bellamy
“Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement(1) A provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the making of a disclosure falling within subsection (2).(2) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is a disclosure of information that is made by a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim—(a) to any person who has law enforcement functions, for the purpose of those functions being exercised in relation to relevant conduct;(b) to a qualified lawyer, for the purpose of seeking legal advice about relevant conduct;(c) to any individual who is entitled to practise a regulated profession, for the purpose of obtaining professional support in relation to relevant conduct;(d) to any individual who provides a service to support victims, for the purpose of obtaining support from that service in relation to relevant conduct;(e) to a regulator of a regulated profession for the purpose of co-operating with the regulator in relation to relevant conduct;(f) to a person who is authorised to receive information on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph;(g) to a child, parent or partner of the person making the disclosure, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to relevant conduct.(3) But a provision in an agreement is not void by virtue of subsection (1) so far as it purports to preclude a disclosure made for the primary purpose of releasing the information into the public domain.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section—(a) to add, remove or modify a description of disclosure in relation to which subsection (1) applies (“a permitted disclosure”);(b) to extend the application of subsection (1) to a provision in an agreement which purports to impose an obligation or liability in connection with a permitted disclosure.(5) But regulations under subsection (4)(a) must not make any provision which would apply subsection (1) in relation to a disclosure—(a) made by a person other than a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, or(b) that does not relate to relevant conduct.(6) In this section—“entitled to practise” , in relation to a regulated profession, is to be read in accordance with section 19(2) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022; “law enforcement functions” means functions for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;“partner” : a person is a “partner” of another person if they are married to each other, in a civil partnership with each other or in an intimate personal relationship with each other which is of significant duration;“qualified lawyer” means a person who is an authorised person in relation to a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007; “regulated profession” and“regulator” have the same meanings as in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 (see section 19 of that Act);“relevant conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the disclosure is or reasonably believes they are a victim (see section 1(1) and (2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 15, would make a provision of an agreement void if it purports to preclude a victim from making certain types of disclosure, unless the disclosure was made in order to release the information into the public domain.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 76 has been tabled to clarify that victims of crime can get the support they need without fear of legal action under confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs. NDAs can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver a clean break where parties seek closure on an issue, but they have been misused to make victims fear repercussions if they seek access to justice or support services. Reporting a crime to the police is already protected under common law, but the legal position is not as clear as it could be. The Government wish to avoid a situation where NDAs might be used to prevent victims telling support services and close family about criminal conduct that has happened to them.
I am therefore pleased to bring forward this amendment, which makes it clear in primary legislation that confidentiality clauses cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they prevent victims reporting a crime or accessing confidential advice and much-needed support. It sets out who a victim can make disclosures to and for what purposes, which includes the police, regulatory bodies, lawyers, support services, and a victim’s partner, parent, or child. However, to protect legitimate uses of NDAs, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that disclosure to those permitted third parties must not be for the primary purpose of releasing information into the public domain, because we want to avoid a situation where somebody, for example, uses a lawyer to front up the disclosure of confidential information when that is not justified.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his time and for the Government’s thought on these amendments, which, as he rightly pointed out, concern the disclosure of therapy notes. I am sure he probably questioned his life choices when he saw me and other colleagues popping into his Zoom calls quite a bit over the Easter Recess. I am absolutely delighted that he has indicated that the Government will accept these amendments. It has been a long, hard- fought campaign by a formidable team of campaigners from Rape Crisis, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rights of Women. I thank the Government for listening.
I believe this will make a material difference to the confidence and well-being of victims of rape, and I hope that over time it will also help reduce the attrition rate in the justice system, which, at 62%, we can all agree is far too high. These amendments are a proportionate compromise. Again, I want to praise the Government. They thought long and hard about getting these amendments right. They do not jeopardise the right to a fair trial, which is crucial, but they correct a significant wrong when it comes to routine intrusion into victims’ therapy notes.
I will be very brief because we are on Report, but just to set the context of why these amendments are needed, when a rape victim reports the offence to the police, they are often put in the impossible position of being forced to choose between pursuing justice or seeking counselling due to the likelihood of their private records and counselling notes being accessed by the police. We know that more than one-third of rape cases had those notes accessed. Very often, victims choose not to seek counselling and those who continue with therapy ahead of a trial are often told that they must not talk about what happened to them. How ridiculous is that? You need to talk about the rape, the thing that happened to you, in order to get over it. Both scenarios leave many victims without vital support at a time when it is needed most. The reality is that the notes that counsellors take in those sessions are to inform their next session. It is not an evidence-collecting process, so very often those notes are not very useful and are often thrown out of court if they get into a courtroom situation. They are not useful, but they are incredibly damaging. Also, justice and proper support should never cancel each other out.
I am very grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has set out the detail, so I will not repeat it in a too-drawn-out way. Essentially, the important point of this amendment is that it raises the threshold at which the police and other bodies are able to request counselling notes during an investigation. In order to request such notes, the police will have to show that they have been able to rebut the presumption that counselling records are not necessary and proportionate to a law enforcement purpose and that they consider that the counselling records are likely to be of “substantial probative value”, which is a higher threshold than “necessary and proportionate”, which we have at the moment. To ensure that this new threshold of substantial probative value is properly understood, because we know that, with 43 police forces around the country, it could easily be misunderstood or not adhered to, the Government should provide clear guidance in the code of practice, working with other relevant partners such as the CPS, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Attorney-General.
Finally, a very important part of these amendments is requiring the Secretary of State to publish a review of how these measures are working and being adhered to three years after the provisions come into force. We all know that post-legislative scrutiny of these difficult areas of law and of how the measures are working in practice is crucial. Taken together, the new threshold and the guidance will enhance the work of transformative programs such Operation Soteria and are another step in the right direction of dismantling the criminal justice system’s focus on victims’ credibility rather than the actions of the suspect.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 87A, 88A and 158, which, as the Minister has already said, discuss additional protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their support for these amendments, which I know are also supported by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and across the House as well. I am sorry that I was not able to speak to them myself in person—I am very grateful to those who did —in Committee due to a family emergency.
The Government argue that their amendment covering these issues sets out clearly in law that the police should request third-party materials only if they are necessary and proportionate to a reasonable line of inquiry. However, these amendments do no more than reinforce existing legal provisions that are already not adhered to. No additional safeguards or protections are being offered. This will do nothing to change policing culture around excessive requests because it will merely reaffirm what already exists in law rather than encouraging operational change. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. Although I do not necessarily intend formally to move these amendments this evening, I am concerned to hear that the third-party material we are talking about is not going to be treated as sensitively as mobile phone data because the material we are talking about could be medical material, school information or even social services records. It may be created by a third party, but it is all sensitive data about the victim of a rape or a serious sexual assault. I think it is a mistake not to have entertained more the protections that we are talking about in these amendments.
Just last week, the Home Office published its report of a case file review of police requests for third-party material in rape cases. The findings are truly shocking, and I encourage anybody who does not believe this is an issue to read that report in full. I think we should consider the findings regarding each of the tests that the police are supposed to apply when making requests for this material. First, is it necessary? In the review of 342 third-party material requests, only 176 requests had a recorded rationale, leaving 49% of requests without an explanation for the necessity of that request. Is the request proportionate? The report found that nearly two-thirds of requests did not contain any parameters, such as a timeframe, to limit the amount of information about the victim being requested. Is the request following a reasonable line of inquiry? Nearly one-quarter of rationales given for the third-party material request were generic or not specific to the case. If the reasoning for making a third-party material request is speculative, it is unlikely to be necessary to make the request in pursuit of a line of inquiry.
We know there is a problem, but there is also a solution. As we have already heard, there is a well-developed framework within the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That framework applies to requests for digital data held on phones, and it sets out that requests for victims’ digital data must receive the consent of victims. If consent is not received, this must not lead to the termination of the police investigation. One of the most serious aspects of this is that where the victim does not give consent, that is almost used as a reason to drop the investigation, which is devastating for the victim concerned. In that Act, there are strong safeguards offering key protections for vulnerable victims. That is what these amendments seek to do: to amend the wording in the Bill to mirror that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.
Anecdotal evidence from victim advocates indicates that, since that Act was introduced, they have seen fewer requests, as well as requests being more appropriate in scope, because of that framework. I do not understand why the Government will not adopt that framework for third-party material requests. It does not make any sense to have two different regimes. Often, this material is sought in tandem. It would be better for victims, and for the police, for there to be one regime.
Victims of crime should not be forced to choose between their own privacy and their right to justice. I hope the Government will look favourably on these amendments, if not now, then in the future.
I want briefly to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Bertin for Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. She is absolutely right that victims and survivors of sexual violence should never have to choose between seeking justice and accessing therapy and support. I thank all those across the House who have supported her in making that case, and my noble friend the Minister for listening.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am using IT in this speech—trying to get trendy, as my daughters tell me to do. My apologies, as I have sausage fingers with arthritis.
First, I would like to speak to Amendment 85. In April 2018, I published a report highlighting the discrepancies between the treatment of those victims whose perpetrator was serving a sentence in prison and those whose perpetrator had been detained under the Mental Health Act. I pressed the Government for change. Dame Vera Baird, who followed me, also took up the cudgels on behalf of this too-often overlooked group of victims. Our argument was that the grief and trauma caused by serious violence and sexual crime was no less if the perpetrator was in a hospital rather than a prison. They all deserve support. They all deserve to have their voices heard.
When I returned to the office last October, there remained unfinished business. Victims of patients detained in hospitals still could not submit a victim’s personal statement to the tribunal when discharge was being considered. Neither could they attend the hearing to present. I am therefore delighted that, on this occasion, the Government and my noble friend the Minister have listened and acted. I welcome the government amendment, which will ensure that, at long last, there will be parity of treatment for this group of victims. I again thank the Minister and his team for bringing this about. I feel sure that it will be welcomed across the House.
I support of Amendments 87A and 88A, which would, if adopted, increase protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. Before turning to those amendments, I thank the Government for their thoughtful consideration of amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lady Bertin. These sought to provide additional protections for victims around notes of therapy, measures which I truly support. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to change the legal threshold for this material, and I hope that they may be persuaded to provide greater protections around other forms of third-party material.
I turn now to Amendments 87A and 88A. The Government argue that their own amendment to the Bill will stop demands for personal and private information from rape complainants but, as they stated in Committee, their clauses do nothing more than consolidate the current legal framework—a framework which has not been followed. How can things change? The Home Office report to which my noble friend Lady Morgan already referred found that, in almost a quarter of these cases, credibility was specifically cited as the reason for requesting third-party material. While credibility can sometimes form a reasonable line of inquiry in investigations, it is most often used in rape investigations. That is because, in rape cases, it is the victim who is being investigated to see if they are believable or credible, not the accused. In no other crime type is the credibility of the victim so scrutinised. Victims must be properly protected from these intrusive demands, as they have been by the Government’s measures in the PCSC Act, which successfully curbed the ambiguous practice of digital download from complainants’ phones—the digital strip-search, as it was known. The Government could, as it did there, introduce a new regime that empowers and protects victims, but instead they are merely reiterating the current framework and hoping that guidance will elicit change. It will not. The officers making the requests referred to in the Home Office report were operating under the existing framework —the same framework that the government clauses will consolidate in this Bill.
The Government point to the defendant’s right to a fair trial as the reason why Amendments 87A and 88A cannot be adopted. But there are other legal mechanisms available to the police and prosecution to obtain this material if the complainant does not agree to access, so the right to a fair trial is not impacted. Additionally, these amendments would provide consistency with the framework around digital material. This consistency is good for the police, and it is so good for the victims.
I urge support for Amendment 87A and 88A, which, along with the Government’s own measure on digital material, and now on notes of therapy, make a significant difference to the victims of this horrendous crime. I also support Amendments 77 and 78, which both seek to provide rape victims with legal advocacy when their right to privacy is engaged by the system. The Government have promised on numerous occasions to explore this option, but they have yet to do so in a meaningful way. It is being considered as a recommendation to the Government by the Law Commission, precisely because of the huge invasions of privacy that victims experience if they report a rape. I urge noble Lords to support these measures.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 96. I thank those noble Lords who added their names to this amendment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Government’s aim in this Bill is to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and their access to support, yet the Bill provides no protection for victims with insecure immigration status who have been the subject of serious crime. If these victims provide information for the police, the Bill as its stands allows their personal details to be passed to the immigration authorities. Amendment 96 tackles this problem. This is important because migrant victims are more vulnerable to experiencing serious crime and less likely to receive redress. In particular, we need Amendment 96 so that migrant victims are protected under the Bill from crimes such as violence against women and girls and modern slavery. The amendment is explicit that the personal data of a victim of a crime of domestic abuse, harassment, modern slavery, a sexual offence or other offences specified in regulations by the Secretary of State must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of the individual.
The amendment also ensures that, before issuing any guidance under this amendment, the Secretary of State must consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The amendment is thus well protected in statute.
Immigrants are particularly vulnerable to serious crime, including violence against women and girls and modern slavery. Abusers use their control over the victim’s immigration status and their right to live and work in the UK to threaten and trap these victims in abuse or exploitative working conditions.
We have a wealth of evidence that, for victims with insecure immigration status, the fear of data sharing between the police and immigration services constitutes one of the most severe barriers to accessing the criminal justice system. Research by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that fully 62% of migrant women had specifically been threatened about their immigration status if they reported abuse. These are not empty threats. For example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was reporting 29 victims and witnesses of crime to the Home Office every day; that amounts to nearly 10,000 people in a year.
To date, the Government have rejected the firewall proposal. They prefer to try to combine enforcement of immigration control and the protection of victims. I, along with the organisations working in this field, do not accept the Government’s proposal as workable. The Justice Committee recommended the introduction of a complete firewall, as proposed here, and, along with the EHRC, called for the immediate end of data sharing between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes.
This is urgent. We know from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office that all police forces in England and Wales share victims’ data with immigration enforcement staff. The absence of a firewall significantly harms not only victims of crime but the public interest, as crimes of course are not reported and therefore remain unpunished. Other countries have recognised the importance of building trust with migrants in order to solve more crimes and prevent and address serious crimes.
I did not fully understand the introductory remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, but I hope that on reflection he will feel that a firewall in this field is justified and could support this amendment or introduce a similar government one in its stead.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I offer some brief words in support of Amendment 96. Like the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I was very disappointed with the response in Committee, which simply rehashed old arguments that I had already challenged. I have two practical questions. First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised the long-awaited code of practice for parliamentary scrutiny by the spring. It may not feel very spring-like, but spring is passing and there is still no sight of it. Surely it should have been made available in time to inform our debate today. The Minister said it would hopefully be this spring, but he did not sound very sure. Can he give us a firm assurance that it will be made available this spring?
Secondly, whereas I had been told in a Written Answer that the also long-awaited protocol would be published in early 2024, all that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could say in Committee was that it would be launched “later this year”. How much later? Why the delay?
Finally, I never received an answer to my much more fundamental question: how do the Government square their intransigent position on the firewall supported by the DAC, various parliamentary committees and all organisations on the ground with repeated ministerial assurances that domestic abuse victims/survivors must be treated as victims first and foremost, regardless of immigration status? As it stands, it is a case not of safety before status, as called for by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, but of status before safety.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has spoken. This was an issue that I came across only when preparing for Second Reading. I do not want to repeat her arguments, and I could not make them as well or as thoroughly as she has, but I was shocked to discover the problems that have arisen in connection with counselling and advice. I also support the firewall amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have been here before many times, have we not?
Last week the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, speaking to the committee reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, raised the interesting position of one law enforcement sector withholding information from, or not sharing information with, another law enforcement sector. She came to her conclusion, but I did not read her as having reached it entirely easily. I reached the conclusion that there should be a firewall for the reason put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: imbalance of power—that is what it is about—between a victim and somebody to whom material is made available for abuse. These are very vulnerable victims. I have circled words such as “later this year” and so on, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned. I will not repeat them, but it would be good to make some progress on this issue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my honourable friend Layla Moran laid an amendment about the ending of non-disclosure agreements that prevent victims disclosing information to the police or other services, including confidential support services, ensuring that they cannot be legally enforced. She has campaigned on this issue for some considerable time. She and I both thank the Minister for the progress in Amendment 76, which is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It certainly will help some victims access the support they need, but we on these Benches regret that this is not enough to fully give victims their voice back. We still need a complete ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying to ensure that no victim is ever silenced. We will campaign on this in future but appreciate the step forward that has been made in this Bill.
I have signed Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for the meetings, his Amendment 76 and what he said in introduction—I agree with the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, talked about third-party data requests, and again it was a privilege to be involved in those meetings. I thank her for her comments and her remaining concerns. She is absolutely right that it does not take us further forward enough.
Finally, I signed Amendment 96 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the immigration firewall. My noble friend Lady Hamwee was absolutely right: we have been here before. I was just thinking about amendments during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the safety of Rwanda Bill and, I suspect, the Nationality and Borders Bill before that—yet we are not making progress. It is very unfortunate that the Government have gone backwards since the Modern Slavery Act in the protection of these particular victims. I know that across the House we will continue to push for ensuring that the loophole is closed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is really a pleasure to respond to this group from these Benches, because there is real progress. It is important to record thanks to everybody who has made this progress happen. I very much welcome the clarification that the Minister has made in Amendment 76. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right, though, that this is a first step. Indeed, today a useful brief was sent to me and possibly other noble Lords from the Bar Council, which makes the point that the issue of non-disclosure agreements is ripe for legislative change. The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s intention to implement legislative reform and recognises that some NDAs are abusive in nature. NDAs cannot cover criminal acts, and under existing common-law protections many are already unenforceable, but those who are asked to sign them are not always aware of the relevant legal principles. When you have the Bar Council and everybody else on your side, you know that this is an important first step.
On the Government’s amendments, I welcome Amendment 85, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, welcomed it. I thank the Minister and his team for listening and for bringing forward this amendment, which was aired in Committee very powerfully indeed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Newlove. Then, of course, there is a suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I was very pleased to be able to support these in Committee. These Benches are absolutely in favour of them; they have the support of the whole House. I know from the very long time ago when I was a Minister how much work goes into getting to this place. I congratulate the noble Baroness and say how much we are in favour of these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is absolutely right to be disappointed about the Government not accepting Amendments 87A and 88A. It is probably clear that we have not come to the end of this. The noble Baroness is quite right in nodding to say, “We have definitely not come to the end of this discussion about what needs to happen to support victims with requests for dealing with digital and other information, and providing the right kind of safeguards for them”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is right, and she has our Benches’ support for her amendment. If there were to be a Division on this then it would be next week. Between now and then we need to look at what the Minister has said to see if we can push him a bit further than he has gone, and then maybe we could avoid that, but the noble Baroness needs to know that she has these Benches’ support, and probably that of the Liberal Democrats, if we need to take the issue further. All in all, we have made great progress.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I shall answer a couple of questions and make one clarification. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said, “Come on now, when are the code and the protocol going to be available?” I am afraid that, at this point, I cannot advance matters further other than to say, according to my instructions, that the code will be available for parliamentary scrutiny this spring—I know that is not as precise as anyone would like—and that the protocol will be launched later this year. These matters are under the control of the Home Office, and we had a discussion earlier about the relationship between 102 Petty France and Marsham Street. That is as far as I can go at the moment, and I apologise to the noble Baroness that I cannot be more precise.
I am prepared, as always, to have a further exchange of views on Amendment 96. I am not sure we can take it much further but we are always ready to listen, since throughout the Bill we are dealing with the problem of striking a balance between effective immigration control and victim support, and unfortunately there are always trade-offs to be made.
To respond to my noble friend Lady Morgan about requests for relevant information, new Section 44A(6) requires that the request is proportionate. The authorised person must be satisfied that there is no other means of obtaining the information or, if there are such means, that they are not practicable. The decision to release the information ultimately lies with the third party, and that third party has their own obligation under the Data Protection Act and their own duties of confidentiality owed to the person concerned. Again, I respectfully suggest that, bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Bertin’s amendments, the balance between fair-trial rights and victim protection is effectively drawn in the result that we have arrived at. It is not perfect, I know, but it seems to be a practical solution to a very difficult problem.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him, but I want to thank him for suggesting that we might meet to discuss Amendment 96 before we come back next week. Obviously, I would be delighted to have a discussion about that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am always happy to meet, but we might not get much further.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I just wanted to put on record that we have agreed that we will meet, and I welcome that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Free independent legal advocates for rape victims(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.(2) For the purposes of this section “independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to this briefly, although we regard it as fundamentally important. Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force. Amendment 78, which we regard as part of the same package, would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free independent legal advice for rape victims. A lack of resource cannot and should not be a reason for not getting legal advice, and it should not depend on a postcode lottery either. This is a similar point to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on Amendments 87A and 88A. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames wanted to speak to these two amendments but is unable to be here today, for which he apologises.
In Committee, the Government’s position, which was entirely sympathetic in principle—the noble Earl is rarely unsympathetic—was that the Law Commission is going to consider this in any event, so we should wait for it to do so before pressing the matter further. However, my noble friend says that that is not good enough. There is no reason for a further report before proceeding with the provision of free legal representation and advice for rape victims. If we wait for the Law Commission then there will have to be a further consultation, but that is not necessary—Liberal Democrats do not say that consultations are not necessary lightly—and then there has to be the process of producing a report and then, finally, a Bill. All in all, that is a long delay on an issue on which the principle is uncomplicated and, in any event, conceded. We support these two amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendments 77 and 78, which, as we have heard, seek to require the development of proposals for schemes to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advice and representation.
I agree that it is extremely important that victims are aware of their rights and confident in those rights, particularly when preparing for trial and when requests for their personal information are made. While it would be novel to provide access to free legal advice and representation for just one type of crime, we recognise that, if there is one category of people who are especially vulnerable, it is victims of rape and sexual offences. We also recognise that victims of these crimes are more likely to receive requests for sensitive personal information as part of an investigation, and that there are calls for independent legal advice to help victims with that situation as well.
That is why the Bill tackles the problem in a different way, by introducing measures designed to minimise requests for information, as my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy explained in the previous group of amendments. Through the Bill we are placing a new statutory duty on the police to request third-party material relating to victims only when necessary, proportionate and relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry. Following the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which the Government have accepted, there will also be a requirement that the Requests for Victim Information code of practice must state that the police and other law enforcement agencies should start an investigation with the presumption that requests for counselling notes are not necessary or proportionate.
My noble friend’s amendments also mandate that counselling notes can be requested by police only if they are likely to have “substantial probative value” to a reasonable line of inquiry. This higher threshold will ensure that police are not routinely requesting counselling notes and that the privacy of these victims is respected.
As I have said, we do not want to create a hierarchy of support by granting government-funded legal advice to victims of just one type of crime. Alongside that, there are some complex and sensitive considerations regarding the introduction of independent legal advice for such victims. In particular, we have to be mindful of the role of the victim as a witness in proceedings and avoid anything that might have an unintended impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This concern emerged very explicitly from the pilot scheme run in the north of England. I direct that point particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Marks; we need to take account of the findings from that pilot, which expressed those concerns. A subsidiary but still important point is to consider the potential impact on timeliness as a result of another process being inserted into the system. That was another concern that arose in the pilot.
These are all far-reaching considerations which, I suggest, require expert input before any statutory measures are considered. The Law Commission’s review will consider all these factors, including—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may like to note—the impact of existing schemes in other jurisdictions. When it publishes its report later this year, its findings and recommendations on independent legal advice will provide us with the robust evidence base that we will need should we wish to go forward and develop the sort of policy proposals that the amendment points us towards. Therefore, it is right for us to wait for those findings.
There is a further point of principle which I ought to flag: it really is not appropriate to place a duty on the Secretary of State in primary legislation to develop policy, especially without any specification of what such proposals should entail and who is responsible for implementing them once they have been developed. Once again, it is much better that we await the Law Commission’s recommendations.
I know how important this issue is to noble Lords opposite, but I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, sufficient pause as regards his original intention to divide the House. There are some good reasons why the amendments should not be pressed, which I hope I have been able persuade him of. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw Amendment 77 and not move Amendment 78.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am not convinced by the noble Earl. When he opened, he acknowledged that this is an especially vulnerable group and that some cases have a case for novel funding arrangements. He talked about the possibility of unintended consequences of unfair trials—a comment about the pilot funding scheme. In other jurisdictions, such as the family court, there is funding for victims of domestic abuse. If a woman—and normally it is a woman—is a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse, there is funding available in that case as well. Given that this is such a vulnerable group, and since this is an issue of great importance to many Members of this House, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 77.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the presumption of custody for children of offenders of child sexual abuse, requiring a Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order protecting the children of an offender on sentencing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we are now in the family court because in the real world and in a joined-up justice system, victims are being dealt with not just in the criminal justice system but in the family system.
I have Amendments 80, 83, 84, 91 and 92 in this group. I will try to deal with them as succinctly as possible given the hour and what noble Lords across the House have had to endure in the last 24 hours. I am dealing with three issues. The first relates to Clause 16, the so-called Jade’s law. I will speak to that in a moment. That is covered in Amendments 80, 84—which is consequential on Amendment 80—and 83, which is distinct, but I am led to believe that the usual channels have agreed that Amendments 80, 83 and 84 will be treated as a package. I will wait for someone opposite to jump up and tell me if I am wrong about that.
Amendment 91 deals with “cowboy experts”—I am trying to be as succinct as I can—that is, unregulated experts giving opinions and getting paid. These unregulated opinions and expertise lead to considerable injustice in the family court, including people having to spend a lot of money and people losing responsibility for or contact with their children. Amendment 92 would ensure that those suspected of or charged with domestic abuse, sexual violence and child abuse are not permitted unsupervised access to their children.
Jade’s law is Clause 16, on which the Government are to be commended. Amendments 80, 83 and 84 attempt to tighten up loopholes in Jade’s law, and they are supported by the family of Jade Ward. On account of the time, I will not recount the details of that case. Noble Lords will know that, in its current form as proposed by the Government, Clause 16 places a parent convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent under a prohibited steps order. This is so that we do not have the murderer or manslaughterer effectively controlling the family from behind bars. The Government are to be commended on responding to the campaign and taking up that issue, but we think there is a loophole in that there are sex offenders—not just murderers and manslaughterers—who are attempting the same coercive control, by way of the family courts, from behind bars.
Amendments 80 and 83 would extend Jade’s law and are supported by the family of Jade Ward, whose campaign originally led to Clause 16. We would extend the provisions of Clause 16 to those convicted of a sex offence against a child in the family.
I am aware that, in response to an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in the other place from my right honourable friend Harriet Harman, the Government have announced that they want to do something and give a concession in our direction in relation to those who rape a child under 13. With huge respect to the Government, that is not enough, because there are very serious sex offences that are not rape and there are very vulnerable children who are just over 13. A child is a child—not least for the purposes of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, if one can still talk about such instruments in Parliament—until they are 18, and certainly there are very serious sex offences that are not rape. So we wish to go further in the ambit of Clause 16, which is Jade’s law.
We also have Amendment 83. This deals with the exception to Jade’s law, as rightly constructed by the Government in the principal amendment. Understandably, and very sensibly in my view, the Government have created, from subsection (5) onwards, an exception to the prohibition in relation to the murderer or the manslaughterer, normally but not always a woman, who is a victim of domestic abuse that led to the murder or manslaughter.
We seek to include domestic abuse, as defined in legislation. At the moment there is an exemption where the offender is convicted of manslaughter and it appears to the Crown Court that this would not be in the interests of justice. We say “the interests of justice” is too vague a concept and they have to be a victim of domestic abuse, as determined by the 2021 Act. “The interests of justice” is too vague a concept to ensure proper protection for all those we seek to protect.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to these four amendments. I feel quite strongly about Amendment 80 in particular, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that they are in fact a package. I was, as I have said many times, a family judge and I tried a great many sexual abuse cases. I spoke earlier about the trauma of sexual abuse lasting right through adulthood. But I ask your Lordships: can you think of anything worse than a child being raped by a parent? It is the destruction of trust in a whole part of the family, where one member creates a situation in which the child is abused. I have to say that they can be abused in two orifices, not just one—and I have heard all too many cases of both.
Sexual abuse seems to be an issue that is almost as important as murder, because the parent is lost to that child for the rest of the child’s life, but the parent retains, under Section 2 of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility for the whole of the child’s childhood up to 18—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would prefer us to refer to “those who are under the age of 18”.
It is such a serious matter that I commend the Government—I really congratulate them—on Clause 16. It is splendid, but it needs this one extra bit. The clause needs to recognise the intense seriousness and the unbelievable trauma for a child. I heard the case of one child, a little girl of the age of four, who was so sexualised by her father that she became a danger. It was not a case between parents, but a care case in which no foster parent who was a man could possibly care for the child. A single woman had to be found to care for that child and teach her to live a normal life. I remember that case always; it really shocked me.
Amendments 83 and 92 deal with the impact of domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, in a case where a mother, or occasionally a father, has been so traumatised by domestic abuse that he or she—mainly she—kills the other parent who has committed it, it would not necessarily be right to deny them parental responsibility.
In relation to Amendment 91, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have had the experience of listening to experts say that one parent was unfit, and I am glad to say that I just did not believe them. However, some of them are quite persuasive and have the most extraordinary proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has talked about parental alienation. There was a certain period in which that was rather popular, but it is dangerous. There are parents who alienate children from the other parent, but it is not a syndrome; it is a fact of life, and it is a very unattractive way in which one parent treats the other. It should not be given the status of some sort of medical condition. There is nothing medical about it; it is just abhorrent.
I also support Amendment 92, but what really matters for me is Amendment 80. We should add sexual abuse to the otherwise admirable Clause 16.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. They are underpinned by a simple principle: the best interests of the child. They seek to prevent the subversion of the family court, so that it cannot be used by abusers to extend their influence and control over victims; and to ensure that, as far as possible, children are protected from abuse and trauma.
Whether directly or indirectly, children are victims of domestic abuse in a household. Tragically, they are sometimes victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents. In such circumstances, the normal assumption that their best interests are served through contact with their parent must be reconsidered. This is why we seek to extend Jade’s law so that not just offenders who are convicted of murdering a partner but those convicted of sexually abusing a child in the family will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended on sentencing, rather than placing the burden on the family to go through family court proceedings after the criminal conviction.
It is why we seek to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent who has perpetrated domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse. Too often, “best interests” has been determined as almost synonymous with increased parental contact. In most cases, that may be true, but we need to make sure that the law works when it is not. Sadly, contact does not correlate to care. Unsupervised contact with someone accused of abuse is a serious risk to the well-being and safety of a child.
Other amendments in this group seek to limit the ability of domestic abusers to carry on their abuse by subverting our justice system and using court procedures to harass and control their victims. The proceedings of our courts must be fair, and we must not let them be used as a tool of abuse. To that end, we must also make sure that any expert advice is properly regulated. This was discussed in some detail during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act. The sorry truth is that we continue to see allegations of so-called parental alienation used routinely by abusers and the so-called experts they produce in the courts to try and discredit children’s testimony and avoid the charges they face. Victims are even encouraged not to disclose domestic abuse as it will only see them cast as unco-operative. This is a deeply alarming situation which poses a real risk for victims and children.
The UN Human Rights Council report Custody, Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children recommends that states legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudo-concepts in family law cases, and the use of so-called experts in parental alienation and related pseudo-concepts. In an early 2023 case involving a regulated psychologist, the President of the Family Division held that it was at Parliament’s discretion whether a tighter regime should be imposed. We should exercise that discretion.
My sense from Committee was that the principles behind the various amendments in this group are widely supported across the House and the differences are largely down to practicalities. It is precisely because of the practicalities that these amendments are needed. Without them the psychological, practical and financial burdens placed on families trying to recover from abuse is very heavy. I shall give just one example. A mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 on court costs to remove parental rights from her ex-husband, who was a convicted child sex abuser, to protect her daughter. This is sadly not untypical. In another case I have been told about, a father was found to have used abusive behaviour towards his children and rape their mother. The mother’s court costs were £50,000. Eventually, the father was ordered to pay, but the very prospect of such high sums risks putting children’s safety at an unjust price.
Victims of domestic abuse must be able to have faith that any abuse endured will not be manipulated against them in court. These amendments are firmly in line with the Government’s ambitions for the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 80 and 84. These amendments would extend the provision of Jade’s law in the Bill, which relates to murder and manslaughter cases, and would deprive a convicted offender of parental responsibility. The amendments would extend the provisions to sexual offences against children in the family. A powerful case has been made for this extension. It was recently approved, as has been said, in another Bill before the Commons. The examples provided in the briefing material fully justify this amendment.
If I may be pedantic for a moment, I will point out that in the explanatory statement attached to Amendment 80 there is an incorrect reference to removal of “the presumption of custody”. There is no such presumption, and the concept of custody has not existed since the Children Act 1989, although it persists in soap operas, to the irritation of family lawyers.
This amendment would prohibit the exercise of parental responsibility by convicted offenders in cases of child sexual abuse. Allowing sexual offenders to continue to exercise parental responsibility would be wholly inappropriate. Amendments 80 and 84 are well suited to the structure of the Bill, which provides for an order to be made by the Crown Court and then automatically reviewed by the family court when there is perhaps a fuller picture of the family circumstances and a fuller picture of wider implications.
In many ways, cases of sexual offending are more difficult because, sadly, in cases of murder and manslaughter, both parents are not alive. When both parents are still alive, and when there is the possibility that the offender is not in custody—or not for very long —serious thought needs to be given, after the automatic order in the Crown Court, by the family court. That is why I suggest that these amendments are well suited to the structure of the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 80, 83, 91 and 92, and I support Amendment 84 as well, although I have not signed it. I will not repeat everyone else’s comments, but I support virtually all of them—though I might take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on a couple of minor details about why amendments have been laid.
I will make one point about Amendment 91 that nobody else has made. The very helpful briefing that we received from the Association of Clinical Psychologists and the Law Society Gazette this week set out the technical anomaly that exists with regulated psychologists. The position of the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council, is that it wrote to the director of workforce at the Department of Health and Social Care to highlight risks presented by unregulated psychologists, including in relation to the provision of expert evidence. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that it was writing in a broader way than just for the courts.
In the landmark case of Re C, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, determined that the courts could not prohibit the appointment of an unregulated person who called themselves a psychologist as a psychological expert because there is no regulation of the term “psychologist”. The way round this would be to take this amendment, to make it absolutely clear. However, there are slightly broader issues that the Government now need to look at, not just from the courts but the wider health system, to make sure that those who are bound by the HCPC are the ones who are regulated to work in these areas—nobody else should be permitted to do so.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been quite comprehensive. All noble Lords have spoken with brevity about these sensitive issues.
I will highlight two points. First, I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about how any order made by the Crown Court should automatically be reviewed by the family court. That was a useful addition to the amendment, although I suspect my noble friend may be pressing the amendments as they are. Nevertheless, I thought it was an insightful point.
My other point about Amendment 91, on psychologists and people with professional expertise, is that the problems extend beyond experts. In family courts, I see McKenzie friends who clearly have their own agendas, and it is an issue with which one has to deal—but that is a tangent to the main points in these amendments. If my noble friend chooses to press her amendment, we will of course support her.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.
The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.
Lord Meston (CB)
I fully understand the point that the Minister is making. Can he indicate whether this problem has now been referred to the relevant Family Procedure Rule Committee? If it has, I would hope that it would get urgent and speedy consideration. If it has not, when will it be?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There have been preliminary discussions with the committee but it has not formally started work. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date, but I can say that there is a reserve power under Section 78A of the Courts Act 2003 which entitles the Lord Chancellor to require the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the point. In the Government’s submission, that is the way that this should be dealt with, rather than in this necessarily narrow Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It would be extremely regrettable if the Family Procedure Rule Committee were to refuse to embark on this exercise, particularly in the light of the comments made in the House today and in the other place. It is clearly something that should be done. That is as far as I can reasonably go at the Dispatch Box. That is essentially our position on Amendment 91: let us take it down the route of the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
Amendment 83 brings us to Jade’s law and Clause 16. This is where one parent murders the other. It is a very specific situation, because you have got only one parent left. In all other situations that we are discussing, you have two parents. Amendment 83 concerns where the parent who has committed the murder is a victim of domestic abuse. That is the purpose of this. The Government’s position—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, came quite close to saying the same thing—is that this is effectively already dealt with in the existing Clause 16. It does not suspend parental responsibility for an offender convicted of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
We are talking here about a Sally Challen-type case, if I may use that expression. The “interest of justice” test is one with which Crown Court judges are familiar in the context of sentencing guidelines. Engaging the test is a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in those cases where the victim has lashed out after years of abuse, they are very likely to fall within this exception, and that is why we have provided for voluntary manslaughter.
It does not seem to the Government that we need any more formal provision in the existing Clause 16 to take account of the situation where the murderer has suffered domestic abuse, because that is already implicit in the clause. If it were the case that, for some reason, Clause 16 was nonetheless to bite, it does, as has been pointed out, provide a pathway for review by the family court. The family court is not going to take away parental responsibility from a mother who has lashed out, if I may use that expression. The Government’s view is we do not need Amendment 83: it is already fairly well covered. I take these points quite shortly because I think it is important to keep this debate fairly short.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for forgetting courtesy in my brevity. I failed to mention the various supporters, some of whom have identified themselves: my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Helic, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As always, I am also grateful for their expertise—including correcting an error in the explanatory note—and the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for understanding the problem with unregulated experts. He alluded to a potentially broader, and quite possibly effective, solution by way of procedure rules and, under pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that it would be extraordinary if this did not happen. I will hold my fire until Report and have great hope—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Then I have no hope. But I will take comfort from the Minister’s comments, because that would be a better, rounder solution in relation to proceedings and it could be broader than just victims. I would prefer that outcome. I hope the Government as a whole will look at unregulated psychologists more generally, in relation not just to proceedings but the public more generally. I take comfort from that and am grateful for it.
On Amendment 83, the current provision for the Jade’s law exemption is vague. If we are trying to deal with domestic abuse, let us call it what it is—it is defined in statute.
On the presumption of parental involvement, the logic of the idea that convicted sex offenders should be presumptively allowed parental involvement escapes me. Jade’s law should be extended. The Minister is almost with me. He wants to act in another Bill, but the clock is ticking for this Parliament and we have a Bill right here on Report in which we could protect children from sex offences, including very serious sex offences that are just short of rape, for reasons which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put more graphically and with greater expertise. We should take this opportunity to act. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 80.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the extent of the restrictions placed on an offender with respect to a child by a prohibited steps order made under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989.
“(za) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989 with respect to a child who is the subject of a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Lord Bellamy
“Victim representations to mental health tribunals(1) Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (victims’ rights to make representations and receive information) is amended as follows.(2) In section 37(8)(c)(i), for “that area” substitute “that local probation board”.(3) After section 37 insert—“37ZA Victim impact statements where restriction order made(1) This section applies if, in a case where section 37 applies, an application or reference mentioned in subsection (5) of that section is made to the First-tier Tribunal or the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.(2) The relevant probation body—(a) must take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person who appears to the body to be the victim of the offence or to act for the victim of the offence wishes to provide a victim impact statement to the body, and(b) if the person provides such a statement, must forward it to the tribunal.(3) Where a victim impact statement has been forwarded to the tribunal under subsection (2), the tribunal must—(a) allow the person who made the statement to request permission to read the statement to the tribunal at a relevant hearing, and(b) grant such permission unless the tribunal considers that there are good reasons not to.(4) The tribunal may have regard to the statement when determining a matter specified in section 36(5)(a) or (b) (but must not have regard to it for any other purpose).(5) In this section—“relevant hearing” means any hearing held by the tribunal before making a decision which disposes of proceedings on the application or reference mentioned in subsection (1);“the relevant probation body” has the meaning given in section 37(8);“victim impact statement” means a statement about the way in which, and degree to which, the offence has affected and (as the case may be) continues to affect the victim or any other person.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for victims of certain serious offences, where the offender is subject to a hospital order with a restriction order, to provide a "victim impact statement" to a tribunal which is considering certain matters in relation to the discharge of the offender.
Lord Bellamy
“(za) in subsection (1)(c), for “section 32” substitute “section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, including the extent to which the duty in section 5(A1) of that Act (duty to provide services in accordance with the code) is being complied with”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Victims’ Commissioner to keep under review compliance with the victims’ code (see my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27).
Baroness Bertin
“(3A) A counselling information request may be made only if the authorised person has reason to believe that the information sought is likely to have substantial probative value to a reasonable line of enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person.(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a “counselling information request” means a victim information request to a person who provides counselling services of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an authorised person to believe that the information sought by a counselling information request is likely to have substantial probative value.
Baroness Bertin
“(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations defining the counselling services in relation to which my amendment of Clause 24, page 22, line 38 applies to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Baroness Bertin
“(1A) The code must in particular—(a) provide that an authorised person must, when considering whether they are satisfied as required by paragraph (c) of section 44A(3) in relation to a counselling information request, start from the presumption that the request is not necessary and proportionate to achieve a purpose in that paragraph, and(b) set out the steps that must be taken by an authorised person when deciding whether that presumption is rebutted.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), a “counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the code of practice issued under new section 44D of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to provide for authorised persons to presume that counselling information requests are not necessary and proportionate and to take certain steps when considering making such requests.
Earl Howe
“Child victims of domestic abuse(1) The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is amended as follows.(2) After section 49 insert—“Notifying schools etc if child is suspected victim of domestic abuse
49A Arrangements to notify schools etc(1) A chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area must ensure that arrangements are in place to secure the objective in subsection (2).(2) The objective is that, if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse, any relevant educational establishment is notified as soon as is reasonably practicable except in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a relevant educational establishment in relation to a child—(a) a school at which the child is a registered pupil;(b) if the child is not a registered pupil at a school—(i) if the child is receiving education at only one educational establishment, that establishment;(ii) if the child is receiving education at more than one educational establishment, such one or more of those establishments as is determined in accordance with the arrangements in place under subsection (1) for the police area in which the child resides.(4) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“educational establishment” means—(a) a school in England or Wales;(b) an institution within the further education sector, within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(c) in relation to England, a 16 to 19 Academy, within the meaning given by section 1B of the Academies Act 2010;“registered pupil” , in relation to a school, has the meaning given by section 434 of the Education Act 1996;“school” has the meaning given by section 4 of the Education Act 1996. 49B Power to extend section 49A to childcare providers
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 49A so that the objective in subsection (2) of that section applies in relation to childcare providers, or childcare providers of particular descriptions, as it applies in relation to relevant educational establishments.(2) In this section—“childcare” —(a) in relation to England, has the meaning given by section 18 of the Childcare Act 2006;(b) in relation to Wales, means anything that amounts to child minding or day care for children for the purposes of Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1) (see section 19(2) to (5) of that Measure);“childcare provider” means—(a) in relation to England, a person who provides childcare—(i) in respect of which the person is registered under Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006,(ii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 34(2) or 53(2) of that Act, be required to be registered under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 3 of that Act, or(iii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 63(3) of that Act, be able to be registered under Chapter 4 of Part 3 of that Act;(b) in relation to Wales, a person who provides childcare in respect of which the person is registered under Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010.”(3) In the italic heading before section 50, for “and orders” substitute “, orders and notification arrangements”.(4) In section 56 (interpretation of Part 3), in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) section 3 (children as victims of domestic abuse).”(5) In section 87 (regulations), in subsection (6), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) regulations under section 49B,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires police chiefs to ensure that arrangements are in place for relevant schools and colleges to be notified if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Government Amendment 90 would require the police to notify schools as soon as possible when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child in their police force area may be a victim of domestic abuse. That means that all children who may be a victim of domestic abuse will receive the necessary support and relevant safeguarding interventions.
Domestic abuse is an abhorrent and sometimes fatal crime, yet it is far too common. It is high volume, high harm and high cost. We fully recognise the devasting impact that it can have on children and young people, which is why we are determined to protect and support better the victims of abuse, including children, and bring perpetrators to justice. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged, for the first time, the appalling damage that domestic abuse can inflict on children and young people and recognised the damage caused to children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse.
Recognising children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right is a very important step. It helps to ensure that children themselves remain visible in the multi-agency response to domestic abuse. This government amendment will help us take this work one step further. It will legislate that each chief officer of police across England and Wales must ensure that arrangements are in place to notify schools when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be a victim of domestic abuse.
This amendment places the notification scheme, widely known as Operation Encompass, on a statutory footing. It is already in operation across all 43 police forces in England and Wales on a voluntary basis. By enshrining the scheme in law, we can ensure that it is consistently applied across all forces. This will help improve early intervention and enable the most vulnerable children to be safeguarded from the harms of domestic abuse.
This Government are committed to supporting child victims and protecting them from domestic abuse. The amendment will be key in our efforts to do so. I therefore hope that the House will welcome it, and I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which provides for the relaying of information to schools. Schools need accurate and prompt information about what is going on. They need to know, and understand, what is happening, or what is suspected. Therefore, I welcome the amendment. It is almost as important as the information going the other way—that is to say, schools relay information to local authorities and, where appropriate, to the police.
I am afraid to say that there are a few cases I have come across where schools, or individual members of school staff, have been reluctant to get involved in child abuse cases, or where there is suspected child abuse. Albeit this amendment provides for the information to pass the other way—from the authorities to the school—if it serves to do anything it may well encourage the passing of information in both directions.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome Amendment 90. I want to add one other issue though. It is very much a one-way system, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has announced, and I ask whether the noble Earl will write to me, the noble Lord, and any noble Lords who speak in this group, to report on the Government’s progress on the recommendations that they have accepted following the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Recommendation 13 is about the need for mandatory reporting, and the Government said, over a year ago, that there would be a full public consultation beginning with a publication of a call for evidence. I have seen neither, but, more importantly, I want to know when we can—perhaps through this Bill—have something going the other way, as the noble Lord so rightly pointed out.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have a genuine question. Of course, I support the amendment, but the wording here is
“if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse”.
If there is a situation where one of the parents calls the police, and there is what is called a “call-out”, that will be recorded, and that sort of information is made available to courts in particular circumstances. But would the child be seen as a potential victim of domestic abuse because the parents have made that telephone call because of a dispute between the parents?
Nevertheless, I support the duty to notify, but I wonder whether the Minister can answer that specific question.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I will deal, just briefly, with the points raised.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a child is considered to have suffered the effects of domestic abuse even if they have not been the direct recipient of that abuse. That is why I made it clear in my opening remarks that it is as much about children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse as it is about a child who themselves have been on the receiving end of such abuse. It is all encompassing in that sense.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I understand it the position at the moment is that the statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, outlines that all schools and colleges must have regard to their legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, as far as the noble Baroness’s specific question is concerned, I shall need to write to let her and other noble Lords know exactly how far we have reached in the process she outlined. I am afraid I do not have that information with me today.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Collection of data on victims of crimeThe Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant bodies including police and crime commissioners in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators of crime.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 93 simply but crucially calls on the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance for relevant bodies”,
such as the police and police and crime commissioners,
“in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators”.
Just to note, the heading in the amendment is rather misleading when it says:
“Collection of data on victims of crime”.
Actually, the main confusion lies with the perpetrators, which obviously has an impact on the victims.
For the policies and proposals in the Bill to be effective, which we all want, many of them will rely on evidence. That means criminological research and official crime data, such as recorded crime and victim surveys, which will enable stakeholders, policymakers and researchers to analyse patterns in both victimisation and offending, and will allow interventions and services to be developed and resources to be targeted effectively.
As I pointed out in Committee, criminal justice data needs to be accurate, credible and consistent. However, data on a person’s sex is now not accurate, credible or consistent because agencies in the criminal justice system do not distinguish between sex, gender identity or self-declared sex. I will not repeat the detailed evidence collected by freedom of information requests that I cited in Committee, but police forces increasingly differ from area to area, recording crime statistics variously, some by biological sex but others by some other concept based on ever-fluid and subjective ideas about gender identity, which is often recorded as if it were sex.
The guidance I ask for in this amendment would clarify that gender should not be used as a synonym for sex, as it leads to confusion and conflation. In turn, this conflation of sex and gender compromises official statistics in terms of trustworthiness, quality, and value for policy and for public understanding. The guidance should untangle the vast array of muddled recording practices around government records, such as passports, driving licences, NHS numbers, et cetera, all of which can be changed, but no amount of documentation changing affects the need for a consistently applied legal identity that is fixed and unchanging from birth to death, registered with the state and necessary for the state to fulfil its responsibilities to citizens—no more so than in criminal justice. That is why data based on sex registered at birth is so important, as it is a fundamental demographic variable, reflecting the reality of sex-based differences between men and women.
Those compiling the guidance might look at other identifiers. For example, in the debate on my Amendment 18 on the previous day on Report, I discussed the problems of identity confusion in relation to safeguarding checks. Keep Prisons Single Sex has made an interesting recommendation relating to the mandatory use of national insurance numbers for DBS checks in relation to identity changes. National insurance numbers remain constant throughout an individual’s life. They are unique to each individual. They do not change and they are unchangeable—even, for example, when an individual obtains legal recognition of acquired gender. So even if someone is issued a GRC, the individual’s new details are listed against their existing national insurance number, which is unchanged and retained until 50 years after the individual’s death. It seems that the state does understand the importance of accurately recording and knowing who a citizen is, and their natal sex, when it comes to collecting taxes. Such seriousness is necessary in other policy areas.
We can see the dangers of confusion if we look at what the Cass review has to say about data in relation to NHS numbers; I am grateful to Sex Matters for its briefing on this issue. NHS numbers are the unique national patient identifier in the UK’s health and social care system, and are vital for clinical safety, record management and, of course, clinical research. However, it has been policy for some time that GP surgeries can change a patient’s recorded sex on their medical records at any time, without requiring diagnosis or any form of gender reassignment treatment, and request a new NHS number. Public Health England tells GPs that medical information on the person’s record must be gender neutralised and transferred to a newly created medical record.
The Cass review found that many children seen by GIDS had changed NHS numbers before they had been seen by specialists, and some were “living in stealth”—that is attending school in the opposite sex. The Cass review draws attention to the dangers this poses, which is helpfully analogous to the problems I am raising and that we face in the lack of clarity on crime data. Dr Cass raises
“concerns about children and young people’s NHS numbers being changed inconsistently, as there is no specific guidance for GPs”.
The review highlighted changing NHS numbers putting children and young people “at risk”—for example,
“young people attending hospital after self-harm not being identifiable as … on a child protection order”,
And, from a research perspective, creating difficulties in identifying
“long-term outcomes for a patient population for whom the evidence base is weak”.
In criminal justice, inconsistent data collection, due to the conflation between sex and gender, can similarly compromise safeguarding and especially distort research—as a consequence, potentially distorting the way the public access facts in relation to crime. Take the differing offending patterns between males and females. Males commit the large majority of offences per se, and some offence categories are only or very rarely committed by females, such as sexual offences or violent crime in particular. That means that even if only a small number of natal males who identify as females are recorded as women, this skews the female sex-offending statistics in a misleading way.
This amendment proposes that the Government use guidance to bring clarity to the situation. This is of democratic importance and seems an important part of the Bill, which means more accountability to and about victims and accountability to the public about the victims and perpetrators of crime. The truth is that the practices of criminal justice agencies recording self-declared sex as actual sex were introduced by public authorities without proper democratic debate, behind the backs of the public, depriving the public of clarity about what is measured in crime data. That then seeps over into misleading the public about precisely who commits crime when it arrives in the public sphere, via the media, for example.
I warmly welcome the manifesto for police and crime commissioners published by campaign groups Fair Cop and Keep Prisons Single Sex, and one section seems especially pertinent to finish with. It says that police and crime commissioners’
“Press releases and communication with the public must be written in accurate and accessible language. Suspects, and other persons of interest, must be described in a way that the public can clearly and quickly understand. Sex registered at birth is always information that must be shared with the public”
and not concealed. Beyond this official crime agency language and media reporting, police-collected data must not be allowed to erase measurable facts and objective reality.
I hope that this amendment will receive support across the House as a modest contribution to clearing up these confusions. I am hoping the Overton window has shifted of late, by the way. How welcome it was to hear Labour shadow Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood acknowledge that she agrees with JK Rowling that
“biological sex is real and is immutable”.
As well, I welcome her comments on the dangers of justice by hashtag and free speech. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that criminal justice data also recognises the immutable nature of sex. I hope the Labour Party will back me in relation to this. I am grateful as well to the Government and the Minister, who has organised for officials to discuss these issues with Kate Coleman from KPSS before Third Reading. It is in everyone’s interest that crime data is accurate, credible and consistent. At present, it is not. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her Amendment 93, which requires guidance to be issued on data collection of sex registered at birth for victims and perpetrators of crime. I recognise the noble Baroness’s commitment to this topic, and I believe the House will return to the subject tomorrow. Many of the points I will make were made last week while discussing the noble Baroness’s other amendment that sought to require data to be collected. I therefore apologise for any repetition.
The Government recognise that accurate data and statistics on biological sex are important to good research and effective policy. For this reason, the Home Office issued guidance in April 2021 in the annual data requirement that sex should be recorded in its legal sense, what is on either an individual’s birth certificate or their gender recognition certificate. Gender identity should also be recorded separately if that differs from that. For consistency, this is based on classifications used in the 2021 census for England and Wales.
Since implementing this guidance, the Government have commissioned an independent review of the recording of sex by public bodies, which will report at the end of August 2024. The Home Office will consider this new guidance once it is available in deciding whether changes are needed to the recording of the sex of victims and perpetrators dealt with by the police.
However, we recognise that there are concerns in this area, and the department has committed to meet groups such as Keep Prisons Single Sex to hear their concerns. Legislation is not required for guidance to be issued on this area. We will continue to work with stakeholders and await the outcome of the review for whether further guidance is needed in this area. I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I was at school, there used to be a tactic called sending people to Coventry, in which you were ignored as a sign of contempt. I am disappointed a second time that the Opposition Benches do not think it worth engaging on the issue, regardless of whether they want to engage with the individual who is putting forward the issue. I am very glad to hear the Minister’s words that the Government are taking this seriously. I genuinely hope that Opposition parties will take this seriously as well, because there is a problem. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Bach, talk earlier about the importance of accurate and consistent data and simplifying data. He made a good point, and I backed him up on it. I was rather hoping that this side of the House—the Labour Benches—might see that through and at least make some positive comments in relation to my amendment.
I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I do not withdraw the importance of the issue. I hope that the detail that will be brought by somebody who has got a detailed knowledge of this—Kate Coleman—to the meeting will help any guidance that might emerge in August and also ensure that we no longer carry on showing the public confused data and hoping that they can work their way through it. It is a democratic question, and I hope that, in future, democrats will take it more seriously than perhaps we have seen tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.