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
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
The Prime Minister is responsible for the ministerial code, and is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers, which are set out in that code. All Ministers are expected to uphold the principles of the code, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
Christian Wakeford
On 19 April, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister to report a breach of the rules by the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in relation to a visit to Venezuela to meet President Maduro on behalf of the hedge fund Merlyn Advisors. Was the Cabinet Office aware of the visit in advance, and did the Deputy Prime Minister—the Secretary of State—or officials have a conversation with the Foreign Office about any tax-funded briefings that he may have received?
John Glen
The Government expect all former Ministers, including Prime Ministers, to abide by their obligations with regard to the business appointment rules set out in the ministerial code. The Cabinet Office is currently considering a letter on this matter from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and will respond in due course.
Dr Huq
In addition to Boris Johnson’s hedge fund lobbying in Venezuela there is his Daily Mail column, as well as his lettuce PM successor’s contravention of the Radcliffe rules in betraying royal confidences in her book. The Minister has said that the Prime Minister is judge and jury in respect of the code. Is it not time for a more independent system, such as Labour’s proposed ethics and integrity commission? If the Government will not do that, can they not just call a general election now?
John Glen
The seven principles on public life are very clear, and I have set out the Prime Minister’s expectations, but let me draw the hon. Lady’s attention to what was said by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2021, namely, that a single commission would “come with considerable disadvantages” and that
“the concentration of such power to a body…does not sit well in our democratic system”.
Sir Chris Bryant
It is fascinating to see four times as many Ministers as Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber today.
Paragraph 1(3)(d) of the ministerial code says:
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public”,
and paragraph 1(3)(f) says:
“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise”.
Why, then, are the Government still refusing to publish the details of the financial interests that the Foreign Secretary had before he was appointed to the House of Lords, why are they still refusing—despite numerous requests from newspapers and others—to publish the facts of whether or not the Foreign Secretary has had to recuse himself from certain elements of his job because of his previous involvement with the Chinese state, and why are they point-blank refusing to say which parts of his job he is recused from?
John Glen
According to the advice of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, last published on 14 December 2023, following a previous publication on 17 July which updated advice issued on 19 April, the process of ministerial engagement with the register is ongoing, and is updated on an ongoing basis. When Ministers are appointed, they fill in an extensive form which their permanent secretaries then review, and there is a continuous process of updating that as interests evolve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In a letter to me, the Deputy Prime Minister said of Mr Johnson’s recent trip to Venezuela that he was
“not acting on behalf of the Government, and the trip was not funded by the Government.”
In a written parliamentary answer to me, we were told that Mr Johnson had only made a “courtesy call” to the British residence. Last week, however, the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments made it clear that Mr Johnson was “in breach” of the Government’s British appointment rules. We also know from Mr Johnson himself that he had been “extensively briefed” by the embassy. When will the Government come clean about what has actually gone on with Boris Johnson’s Venezuela visit?
John Glen
I explained in an earlier answer where we are in terms of the Cabinet Office considering the letter from ACOBA. We do expect all Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to abide by those business appointment rules. They are contractual requirements for civil servants and are drawn to the attention of Ministers by the ministerial code. As was announced in the Government’s response last July to the report from the Committee on Standards on Public Life, Mr Boardman’s review and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we are continuing to consider methods of strengthening the system and encouraging compliance with those rules. As for the specific case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, I have said that the Cabinet Office is due to respond to that letter.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The cyber threat facing the United Kingdom is intensifying. State and non-state actors have targeted our critical national infrastructure, our businesses and even our democratic institutions. The Government have introduced a new national cyber strategy, which takes a whole-of-society approach. We have set out high standards of cyber-protection for our critical industries and, with the help of our world-leading agencies, we are offering advice to institutions, businesses and individuals on protecting themselves online.
Nick Smith
Cyber-security is crucial not only to our defence sector but to others, including finance, energy and retail. Sector leaders have raised fears about the future supply of cyber professionals. There is some brilliant work taking place at Ebbw Vale College in my constituency—pioneering stuff is going on around cyber-security—but can the Deputy Prime Minister say what is being done to onshore these critical roles to protect our economy from attacks by hostile actors?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have tremendous strengths in national cyber-security, and there are many relevant institutions around the country. I have visited universities in Wales that are churning out brilliant graduates. We need to do more at secondary school level to encourage more children to get involved in cyber-security, because the demand is only going to increase in the months and years ahead, and I have been engaging with the Education Secretary on precisely this point.
John Cryer
We have all seen in recent weeks how weak cyber-security can compromise elected representatives and lead to the extraction of often compromising information. Could the Minister update the House on what he is doing to provide support and technology specifically to elected representatives to make sure that this does not happen in the future?
Oliver Dowden
This is an important issue, which is why we established the National Cyber Security Centre. It brings together Government Communications Headquarters expertise with that of the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and others. Through the National Cyber Security Centre, we work with the House authorities and others to make sure that they have sufficient and appropriate advice, but also to advise on equipment and the general security of Members of Parliament. If they have concerns about their cyber-security, I would urge them either to get in contact directly with the National Security Cyber Centre or to do so through the relevant House authorities.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is right to say that the threat is intensifying. Late last year, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy urged the Government to offer more active support on cyber-security to local authorities. He may be aware that last month my own local authority, Leicester City Council, suffered a hugely sophisticated attack, which disrupted many local authority services and has hugely inconvenienced many of my constituents, who rely on those services. Given that we are seeing more of these ransomware group attacks on public institutions across the world and that he says, rightly, that the threat is intensifying, what urgent support and guidance is he offering local councils, such as mine in Leicester?
Oliver Dowden
Specifically in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, I have been briefed by the National Cyber Security Centre on that incident. He is totally right to say it is a significant and serious incident, and we are working on remediation through the National Cyber Security Centre. To prevent this type of attack from happening in the first place, we invested £2.6 billion in the national cyber strategy, which is about improving cyber-resilience and reducing legacy technology. I have been quite open with the House in saying that the threat is intensifying because we see hostile states creating environments in which cyber-criminals can flourish, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of those hostile states. We are working through our intelligence agencies and the National Cyber Security Centre to continuously improve our performance.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Protecting national security is the Government’s first duty. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced a fully funded plan to increase our defence spending by £75 billion over the next six years. As part of this uplift, we will bring forward a national defence and resilience plan, building on the resilience framework and integrated review to respond to the evolving threats we face. We are bringing our defence and civilian preparations together to reflect the interconnectedness of those threats. The Cabinet Office plays a central role in this endeavour, co-ordinating strategy through Cobra, resilience directorates and the National Security Council.
Mike Amesbury
In the past week, three people in Germany have been arrested on suspicion of spying for China and two have been charged in the UK. This comes on the back of the Intelligence and Security Committee report which concluded that the Government have no strategy or whole-system—whole-Government —approach to deal with this serious threat. When is the Minister going to get a grip on this serious threat to our democracy from China?
Oliver Dowden
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We dealt explicitly with this in both the integrated review and the integrated review refresh, which set out a co-ordinated approach and are clear about the threats we face from hostile states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and indeed China. We are very clear about the threats China poses to our economic security and our democratic institutions, and that is why we have taken a range of actions, including for the first time directly attributing attacks to China and imposing sanctions in respect of them.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
With local and national elections on the horizon, it is vital that voters can have full confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. With that in mind, what assessment has the Department made of the risks posed by deepfakes and misinformation in the upcoming elections?
Oliver Dowden
I have considerable concerns about deepfakes being used in the upcoming elections. We have seen hack and leak being used as a tactic by hostile states in previous elections, and we have to take into account deepfake capabilities, particularly enhanced by artificial intelligence. That is why we are developing our strategy through the Defending Democracy Taskforce and undertaking exercises right now to enhance our capabilities. It is, however, a challenge to all citizens not necessarily to take images to be true on first sight, because of adversaries’ enhanced capability.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs has provided £445,000 for research into the lived experiences of women veterans and for development of further support. With my hon. Friend making valuable contributions, we are developing the Government’s first women’s strategy, which will celebrate the success of women veterans but also look at the specific challenges they face, so as to better address their needs.
Sarah Atherton
I am one of the estimated 250,000 female veterans, and I have spent the last four years raising awareness of this hidden community. I am pleased to have worked with the Minister on establishing the first female veterans strategy. I have been chair of the advisory board; the evidence gathering has ended and the recommendations have been made. Will the Minister let me know whether the term, “female military sexual trauma” will be acknowledged and included, and the date on which the strategy will be published?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a passionate advocate of this cause. She is the first woman from the ranks to be elected to this place, and she should be incredibly proud of all she has done over her many years of work on this issue. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, I recognise the unique challenges around sexual trauma in the military—of course I do. The strategy will be published before the summer recess. I know my hon. Friend is waiting for it, and I am determined to get it out before the recess. I am hopeful that it will meet all the demands and all the hurt in that community that has been unmet for too long.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have had the pleasure of meeting many female veterans in my constituency and of working with fantastic organisations such as Woody’s Lodge, the Royal British Legion, and of course Welsh Veterans Partnership. What is the Minister doing to work with the Welsh Government and local authorities across the whole of the UK to ensure that women veterans get the support that is rightly being asked for?
Johnny Mercer
We meet the devolved authorities regularly to make sure that all our strategies are in sync. Obviously, a lot of these policy areas, whether health, housing or education, are devolved, but we are clear that, both nationally and internationally, we want the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to set the standard. We have great relationships internationally now in terms of setting the pace on that, and I want to make sure it is concomitant with what we are doing with the devolved authorities: we have regular meetings with the Welsh Government and the Scottish, and indeed we are going over to Northern Ireland again in two weeks.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It looks like the Member who tabled No. 10 is not out of bed.
A validation process is carried out to assess the strength and credibility of each nomination. We protect the integrity of the honours system by carrying out probity checks with a number of Government Departments before the Prime Minister submits names to His Majesty the King for approval.
Ruth Cadbury
The Prime Minister previously backed calls for Horizon victim and campaigner Alan Bates to receive an honour, yet his name was absent from the Prime Minister’s surprise honours list last month. However, Russia-linked Mohamed Mansour’s name was on that list. What was it about the multi-millionaire, generous Conservative party donor that attracted the Prime Minister to the idea of giving him a knighthood?
Alex Burghart
The gentleman whose name has just been mentioned is a very successful businessman and philanthropist, and I am sure those qualities were very much in the Prime Minister’s mind when he was put forward for an honour. Extremely distinguished names from the world of artificial intelligence and the creative industries were also recognised for their contribution to our country.
Alex Burghart
I advise the hon. Gentleman to go back and check the list because, not for the first time in this House, he is wrong.
Mr Dhesi
The Prime Minister recently announced an extraordinary round of honours, which many described as lacking integrity and bringing the system into disrepute. It included a donor who had donated £5 million to the Conservative party, and four Conservative MPs loyal to the Prime Minister. In the run-up to a general election that he is widely tipped to lose, what could possibly be the justification for the Prime Minister announcing and recommending a round of honours outside of the traditional King’s birthday list?
Mr Speaker
Order. It would have been easier if you had been here for the beginning of the question. Stretching the question is testing my patience and the patience of the Government Front Bench.
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Member for Slough for turning up. I refer him to the answer I gave a few moments ago.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Government have successfully reduced inflation by more than half, making the cost of living more affordable for veterans, along with every other resident of the UK. Veterans in employment within six months of leaving service is at an all-time high—89%—and our recently launched Operation Prosper employment pathway will help veterans and their families to secure well-paying jobs in key sectors.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Here are some facts. Veteran homelessness has risen by 14% over the last year. Seventeen per cent of veterans, and their families, are living in food insecure households. Over 80,000 veterans are having to claim universal credit just to get by. Despite the Minister’s claims of making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran, it isn’t, is it?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Lady says, “Here are some facts,” before reading out a load of things that are not correct. It does not change the facts of those situations. Last Christmas, under a programme designed by this Government, not a single veteran slept rough because of a lack of provision. The shadow Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), has not even turned up to ask questions this morning, so I will take no lessons from Labour on veterans.
Going into this election, veterans are deeply nervous about what Labour’s offer might be. Again, these banal quotes about statistics are not correct. This is not a game. These are serious people who deserve the nation’s respect, and I encourage the Labour party to align with that.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
In January, I appointed an expert group to provide technical advice on the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation. The Government will provide an update on next steps regarding those recommendations as soon as possible following the publication of the final report on 20 May.
Gerald Jones
Justice is long, long overdue on this issue. A constituent affected by this issue told me what they had been through, which included a liver transplant, many antiviral regimes, ongoing health impacts and dealing with the fact that many of their peers—the children they spent time with when they were growing up—are no longer with us. There is simply no financial or political price high enough to cover the stress and impact on their mental wellbeing. This House has shown its will on this issue, so why are we still waiting and, importantly, when will people start to receive the compensation, given that on average one person dies every four days as a result of this scandal?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes absolutely the right points and I agree with his call for urgency. As I set out in my response to the urgent question a few days ago, my absolute priority is delivering this as quickly as possible. The legislation to set up the infected blood compensation authority is in the other place and will be debated next Tuesday. We announced on 17 April what we are doing on interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected. Further work is going on and I am engaging with the community over the first 10 days of May—so before 20 May, when the report will be published. His representation on urgency is heard by me and I am working on it as quickly as I can.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The amendment that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and passed by this House at the end of last year was to set up a compensation scheme within a strict time limit of three months. That time limit must remain in the Bill and victims need concrete action. Will the Paymaster General tell us when the Treasury will set out its detailed costings for the scheme? Secondly, and most importantly, when can victims expect their final compensation payments?
John Glen
The costings will be a responsibility of the Treasury, but a joint team between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury is working to give advice to the Prime Minister so that we can make decisions in a timely way as soon as possible from 20 May. I am conscious of the fact that across all the different communities of infected and affected as much clarity is needed as possible. They have had to wait too long, so I am making sure that, as far as we can, when those final decisions are made there will be not only a headline decision, but clarity on process thereafter. It is those details I am working on now and I hope that a decision can be made as soon as possible from 20 May.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Having a child with a rare condition who continues to get sicker despite treatment is every parent’s worst nightmare. Recent revelations that children as young as three were immorally used as guinea pigs and given infected blood are truly horrific. Without payouts of compensation, how can any parent have faith that the UK Government will ensure accountability and that they will take real responsibility for this scandal?
John Glen
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. She refers to what has come out in the press in the past few weeks. I am anticipating that on 20 May Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report will reveal in harrowing detail not only the allegations and what happened a long time ago, but the consequences, which have been profound and life-changing for so many people in this country. I listened to her and the advice she gave me after the last oral questions, and I will be visiting Scotland and working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a United Kingdom approach.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Government continue to take unprecedented action to support those who served us: through Operation Fortitude, we are ending veterans’ rough sleeping; Operation Restore encourages supporting their health and wellbeing; and Operation Prosper is an employment pathway to help veterans secure high-value jobs. We are also planning to publish the UK’s first draft veterans Bill, representing another step forward in our journey to make this the best country in the world in which to be a veteran.
Sarah Dyke
The Wincanton armed forces breakfast club, held at the Balsam centre in my constituency, offers veterans a place to catch up, where they can have peer support and enjoy a social, hearty breakfast. What efforts is the Minister making to support community-focused initiatives such as that for veterans across the UK?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the Wincanton armed forces and veterans breakfast club. Like many breakfast clubs, including those in my own constituency, it does an amazing job bringing together veterans and tackling isolation and loneliness, particularly among the older generation. I encourage all Members of the House to visit. The clubs do not just happen, so I pay tribute to the volunteers and those who turn up every week to administrate them. Those people do not just talk a good game on veterans; they get in there, volunteer, spend their time and really care, so I pay tribute to all of them.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Today is Anzac Day, when we remember Australians and New Zealanders who gave so much. In an increasingly dangerous world, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to veterans in Australia, New Zealand, here in the UK and right across the Commonwealth, to whom we owe so much?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question. Anzac Day is an incredibly important day. I was in Australia only a few months ago. We are only as strong as our relationships with our allies. They have made an extraordinary contribution to world peace, particularly during the world wars. I pay tribute to veterans across the globe. It is not easy fighting wars, particularly wars of choice that are not global conflicts, and then coming back and reintegrating into society. Veterans can be incredibly proud of their service. People like me and my counterparts in Australia and elsewhere will continue to strive night and day to improve their lot in civil society when they return.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government recognise how vital digital products and services are for delivering public services. The digital, data and technology playbook provides best practice guidance for the procurement of digital products and services. The playbook is updated annually, most recently in June 2023. Departments are responsible for ensuring that public services delivered by the private sector represent value for money.
Chi Onwurah
Digital services procurement should be a win, win, win: the British public get better services, businesses get a good and reliable customer, and public services are reduced in cost. However, that is not the case under this Government. Departments are locked into single-source providers and dependent on legacy systems. The National Audit Office itself said that procurement was not competitive enough. As an example of that, can the Minister say how competitive cloud service provision is across his Government? Will he set out how he is using open source to boost competitiveness in digital services procurement?
Alex Burghart
We have a highly successful commercial function in Government, which is driving up value for money across all our commercial arrangements. It monitors contracts, before, during and after they have been in place, to ensure that we reduce the chances of issues such as lock-in. I strongly advise the hon. Lady to go and read the commercial function documentation—
Alex Burghart
I am sure she has not. She should read the commercial function documentation that comes out of the Cabinet Office, because she will see, as has been shown successively, that it saves billions of pounds for the British taxpayer.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The Cabinet Office continues to play a central co-ordinating role in protecting our national and economic security. Last week, we published the response to the call for evidence on the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and I set out the steps we will take to fine-tune that system, including honing our approach to export controls, outward investment and providing more support to business.
Later, I will be convening a round table of university vice-chancellors to brief them on the security risks in research and academia, and to discuss how we address those. All of that complements our plans for a generational £75 billion uplift in defence spending, including a new national defence and resilience plan, setting out a cross-Government approach to security, preparedness and resilience as a nation.
Christine Jardine
It is often claimed by critics that the continual stream of ineffective and incompetent legislation we see from Holyrood is evidence of the need for a second, democratically elected Chamber to scrutinise properly. We have such an effective Chamber here and this week we have seen how important it can be in legislation. Would that Chamber’s position not have been strengthened by being a democratically elected second revising Chamber? Does the Secretary of State agree that the time has come when we need to look again at how we reform the House of Lords to make it more relevant to the 21st century and more democratic?
Oliver Dowden
I am afraid that I completely disagree with the hon. Lady about having an elected second Chamber. This is the democratic Chamber for our nation. It is the principal voice of the nation. We do not need a second Chamber in conflict with this one, further burdening and complexing legislative processes.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The very welcome Windsor framework demonstrated a strong commitment to human and animal health by extending Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines until 2025. I welcome the establishment of the veterinary medicines working group by the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Minister of State. I am pleased to be part of that group, which is working hard to find a permanent solution to this matter. Can my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office, reassure the House that the Government will continue to strain every sinew in discussions with the EU to protect both animal health and public health in Northern Ireland and right across the UK with a permanent solution for access to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can so assure my hon. Friend. I am very grateful to him for bringing his professional expertise to bear within the working group. We have met twice and we intend to report at the end of June. We will then have a consistent and coherent position with which we can go forward to blend a combination of adaptation and, I hope, productive negotiations with the EU to deliver a long-lasting, permanent solution to safeguard both animal and human health on the island of Ireland. I am determined that we should do that in a coherent and professional manner, and I look forward to working with him to do so.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I begin with a moment of unity? The Deputy Prime Minister and I are both pushing for an early general election as soon as possible. I very much welcome his recognition that there is absolutely no point in this Conservative Government carrying on in office a moment longer.
Further to the question a little earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), this week two people were charged in this country, under the Official Secrets Act, with spying for China, one of whom worked for politicians in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I must stop the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that he is about to go down a road on a matter that is sub judice, which cannot be discussed here in this Chamber. The Speaker made a statement at the beginning of business earlier this week, asking Members not to refer to this matter, because it is sub judice. Can the right hon. Gentleman ask his general question in a different way, and not refer to that specific issue?
Mr McFadden
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall ask a policy question.
The Government recently awarded a contract for a supercomputer to Lenovo, a China-headquartered firm that has been the subject of enforcement action by the United States on security grounds. This supercomputer will be used by critical Government bodies such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority. How will Ministers safeguard the public against any possible misuse of sensitive Government data as a result of the awarding of the contract?
Oliver Dowden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he has also written to me regarding that topic. I can assure him that we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Security Secretariat to ensure that full checks and measures are put in place to prevent such abuse from occurring.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to his role as general election co-ordinator for the Labour party. I understand that he sits on the quad, which determines Labour policy, so perhaps he could clear up, for the benefit of us all, this question on an issue of national security. Does the Labour party support our £75 billion increase in defence spending? If he cares about these things, the answer should be plainly, “Yes, we do”.
Mr McFadden
When we announce a policy, we ensure that it is properly costed and funded, which I recommend to the Deputy Prime Minister. One other cyber-threat that modern states are facing is prepositioning: the planting of destructive software in critical infrastructure that can then be activated at a later date. The director of the FBI said that prepositioning of the Volt Typhoon type discovered in American infrastructure was
“the defining threat of our generation”.
America’s cyber-defence agency said that Five Eyes allies were also likely to have been targeted. Have the Government looked for or found Volt-Typhoon-type infiltration of any parts of our critical national IT infrastructure, and if so what action is being taken to remove it?
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman has been around this place long enough to know that he is delivering a non-answer on Labour’s support for defence spending. The whole House will have noted that, although he raises an important issue in respect of prepositioning. He will appreciate that there are limits to what I can say from the Dispatch Box given that some of this relates to high-side intelligence, but I assure him that we are working with our Five Eyes allies, in particular the United States, since the US and the UK have exceptional capability in these areas, to ensure that we both have adequate knowledge and understanding of such prepositioning, and take effective steps in respect of it.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Eight weeks ago, on 29 February, at first order questions, I asked the Minister without Portfolio what the Government would do to assist people who are adversely affected by the statute of limitations as a result of having been injured by covid-19 vaccines. My right hon. Friend said in response that she had taken the issue to the permanent secretary. Will she update us on what has happened with the permanent secretary over the past eight weeks?
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. He is a tireless campaigner on this matter, on which he has met with me and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As I said to my hon. Friend, I am dealing with this matter with the permanent secretary; he will know that we have a new permanent secretary in the Department, and we are working at pace to resolve it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Last year, the UK Government promised to relocate hundreds of civil service posts to the north-east of Scotland. It has now been confirmed that the total number will be 35. Given the billions generated in energy revenues and the unparalleled potential of our area in powering our green future, can the Minister please explain to the people of the north-east of Scotland how hundreds and 35 are now the same thing?
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the second headquarters of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in Aberdeen, which I visited just before Christmas. I think that there was a misunderstanding about the numbers that were quoted in the paper. Some 18,283 jobs have moved out of London as a consequence of the places for growth programme. I will examine the number that have moved to Scotland, and write to her to clarify the Government’s position.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
It is an important question. We are doing exactly that. Extreme heat is something that we have to increasingly plan against. That is why last year, for the first time, we introduced an alert system for extreme heat that matches the alert system for extreme cold. I disagree, though, with the Mayor of London that the way to deal with this is to start imposing 20 mph speed limits everywhere and an ultra low emission zone. I hope that the people of London will take the opportunity to vote against that next week.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Earlier we heard a number of statements from the Opposition questioning ministerial integrity, but perhaps they should look closer to home—to be precise, at the first Minister of Wales and his links with donations to his leadership campaign and the Development Bank of Wales. Can the Minister tell us when the Welsh Labour party will apply to itself the standards that Labour has called for in the Chamber this morning—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If you all shout, I cannot hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but I think there is some doubt: the hon. Lady cannot ask the Minister a question about what the Labour party will do. Would she like to rephrase what she is saying?
Sarah Atherton
With reference to the links between the First Minister of Wales, the donations to his campaign and the Development Bank of Wales, would the Minister like to describe why this is such an issue for the people of Wales while the Opposition keep shouting that we are doing the wrong thing?
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. If a devolved Administration receives a donation as part of a political campaign—if the leader of that Administration receives a £200,000 donation at the same time that the Development Bank of Wales makes a £400,000 loan to a subsidiary of that company—that is surely a matter of public interest. It will be for the First Minister of Wales to determine what is appropriate, but I would have thought some explanation would be the very least that the people of Wales would expect.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
John Glen
The hon. Lady is right: in July, in response to those three reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Boardman review and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Government did say they would work up strengthening the rules on business appointments and developing that ministerial deed. I cannot give an update at this point, because it is work the Deputy Prime Minister and his team are leading on, but it is important work and we do need to get it right.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words and her constructive approach. It is absolutely right that she continues to press me, as she does at every opportunity. Reflecting on our conversations and what she has said to me, the key thing is to ensure that we maintain and reclaim the trust of the infected blood community in all its dimensions. She will know that I am engaging with them in depth over several meetings on 1 and 10 May. Sir Brian Langstaff made clear that the infected blood community and all those accessing the scheme should have a role to play in its delivery, so, consequential to listening to what they say to me, I will be thinking about how we build that in. As she knows, the Government have made provisions for committees and sub-committees to ensure representation of the communities, while also maintaining an independent, arm’s length body. I will need to reconcile those. I am sorry that I cannot give her a timetable, but I am working on it in some detail.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman will know, shortly before taking office the Foreign Secretary not only had all his interests properly reviewed by the propriety and ethics team in my Department, but went through them with the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. The independent adviser set out all relevant interests, and those have been published, so the information is transparently out there for people to be able to judge for themselves.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman will know, any criminal allegations are properly a matter for the courts, and he would not expect a Minister to comment on them from this Dispatch Box. If he wishes to write to me in respect of the further allegations he makes, I will be happy to take them up myself or with ministerial colleagues.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
What consideration has been given to the merits of making it illegal for public sector bodies to pay ransoms if they are the victim of a ransomware attack?
Oliver Dowden
That is a good question; it is something the Government continue to keep open and under review. The argument against doing so is that it could discourage companies that are subject to ransomware attacks from reporting them, for example to the National Cyber Security Centre. Those reports help us to gather intelligence on the nature of those threats and to work with victims to resolve them. It is not something I rule out totally, but that is the reason that we have not imposed it so far.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), will know that many councils in Northern Ireland have appointed veterans’ champions. Will he join me in acknowledging the work that many veterans’ champions do? Will he also call on the wide range of political parties on councils in Northern Ireland to offer their unstinting support to those champions to help to deliver services to veterans?
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Yes, of course. We have made extraordinary progress on veterans affairs in Northern Ireland. I recognise and have always recognised the unique difficulties of that. Veterans’ services, and ensuring that these people are looked after because of their service, should not be at the whim of different political parties. I am working at pace to establish an outpost of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in Northern Ireland to create an environment where everyone can work together and pull together all the different services to get veterans’ care in Northern Ireland up to the same level as in England. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and other elected representatives out there from all parties to make sure that we do the right thing.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
With two former Conservative Prime Ministers having recently contravened the ministerial code—twice, in the case of Boris Johnson—and the Radcliffe rules, in the case of his successor, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), is it now Tory party policy to routinely ignore the rules? If not, what sanctions will they face?
John Glen
The hon. Lady is correct to say that the book by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), was reviewed under the Radcliffe rules. The Cabinet Office did not clear it. The overwhelming majority of books that are submitted do comply. We will have to keep these matters under review.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This is a very simple question to the Deputy Prime Minister: does the Foreign Secretary stand recused in any aspect of his job by virtue of his financial interests, either now or before he was appointed to his post—yes or no?
Oliver Dowden
The Labour party keep on pushing on this point, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the latest list of ministerial interests, which was published in December and provides details of Minister’s interests, including those of the Foreign Secretary, that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant, or could be perceived to be relevant, to their ministerial roles. All of it is there in the public domain.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
With reference to the written questions that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office has answered, can he outline what the Government consider to be the difference between a foreign court and an international court?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
We have answered this question on a number of occasions.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Paymaster General told my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) that he could not give a timeline with regard to the infected blood scandal compensation. This subject is raised on an almost daily basis in this House by Members on both sides, because our constituents just cannot understand why it is taking so long. Can he at least give an indication of when he thinks compensation might begin to be paid? It is especially important given that, as I understand it, one victim of the scandal dies every four days.
John Glen
The answer to this is to be found when we issue the comprehensive response to the inquiry, as soon as possible after 20 May. Legislation is going through the other place to make good on the amendment that was passed in this House by virtue of the advocacy and leadership of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). We have announced that we will make some interim payments to the estates of those deceased infected who have not yet received any money, but the substantive response to translate 18 recommendations into meaningful and actionable responses for a wide community over 40 or 50 years obviously demands a lot of work to quantify and get the process right. We will update the House as quickly as possible after 20 May.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Just now, the Deputy Prime Minister raised the issue of the £75 billion public spending announcement. Would he care to tell the House why, after 14 years in power, it takes an upcoming general election for him and his party to make defence spending policies?
Oliver Dowden
It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention, but Russia has invaded Ukraine and Iran’s proxies are attacking our allies in the middle east. That demands a response from the Government, and it has been provided by the Prime Minister. It is very notable that the Labour party is failing to match that commitment.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Papers at an employment tribunal last week reported that Rowaa Ahmar, a former civil servant, stated that
“the racism within the Cabinet Office appeared to be unrelenting and systemic”,
and that, despite having a role as head of policy in the Government’s illegal migration taskforce, she was made unwelcome at meetings about the Rwanda plan because of her views on the racist ultra-hostility of the policies. Is Ms Ahmar right that speaking up against racism in the Cabinet Office is a career death sentence?
John Glen
I do not accept that at all. Of course, Ms Ahmar withdrew her allegations completely on the eve of having them scrutinised at the higher tribunal, so I do not accept that, and it is absolutely right that senior civil servants take action when there are performance issues with the staff under them, without fear of allegations being made against them.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) about the infected blood scandal, the Cumberlege report highlighted over three years ago the need for redress for victims of the sodium valproate, vaginal mesh and Primodos scandals. What progress has been made on redress for those victims?
John Glen
I am sorry; I am not able to give an answer on those other scandals. There was a Backbench Business debate on redress schemes last Thursday, to which the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) replied. I believe that work is ongoing, but I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a thorough answer on the matter.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that standards may have changed since I was last in this place, but in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), rose to the Dispatch Box and said, “We have answered this question on a number of occasions.” Can that possibly be a legitimate ministerial answer? After all, that could be the answer to virtually every question that is ever asked in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I cannot help agreeing with his final point, having sat in the Chair for thousands of hours and heard the same question answered again and again. He makes a very good point: Ministers are responsible, and have a duty to answer the question again and again. However, if the Minister thought—today or at any other time—that the appropriate answer in the circumstances was the one that the hon. Gentleman just quoted, that is not something that I can criticise, or a matter on which I can take action. As Mr Speaker has said many times, and as I am very pleased to repeat, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is not a matter for the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman’s point of order has brought us perfectly to just after 10.30 am. We can therefore proceed to the business question.
Business of the House
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I ask the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 29 April will include:
Monday 29 April—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill.
Tuesday 30 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Wednesday 1 May—Remaining stages of the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords].
Thursday 2 May—Debate on a motion on security in the western Balkans, followed by a general debate on pension schemes. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House of Commons will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on Thursday 2 May and return on Tuesday 7 May.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 May will include:
Monday 6 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 7 May—General debate on defence.
Wednesday 8 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 9 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 May—The House will not be sitting.
Lucy Powell
The awful events in Wales yesterday will have been traumatic for students, staff and parents, and our thoughts are with all those affected. I also pay tribute to Frank Field. The words said about Frank in recent days really reflect who he was: principled, determined, relentless, kind, generous and funny. His tireless campaigning against poverty, and for opportunity and education, changed the life of so many children who will never know it. My thoughts are with his family and friends.
As someone well experienced in divided, weak Governments, does the Leader of the House share my concern that the SNP has broken its power-sharing deal, which its leader said only last night was in the best interests of Scotland, leaving the people of Scotland even worse off? Under the SNP Government, one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, and people face higher bills and higher taxes. Does she think that is why the Scottish Greens, the SNP’s former partners, accuse the SNP of “selling out future generations”?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This has got nothing to do with the business of the House.
Lucy Powell
It absolutely does; I am asking the Leader of the House for her opinion on these matters.
Another week, another litany of problems for the Government. Last week, there was more scandal and internal positioning, and this week, there is a catalogue of failings. The Government’s flagship childcare plan is in tatters. They spent months in denial, yet this week the Department for Education finally admitted what many parents have been experiencing: that the roll-out targets are “problematic”. Yesterday, the spending watchdog warned that the Government’s plan does not
“achieve its primary aim or demonstrate value for money”.
The report was damning about the DFE’s oversight and planning for new places. Can the right hon. Lady guarantee that full delivery of the plan is on track? This is the reverse-Midas-touch Government. Only they could turn what should be a popular policy into such a vote loser.
Another policy that the Government have turned to dust is their pledge on renters’ rights. Ahead of Report stage of the Bill on that subject yesterday, the Government tabled hundreds of amendments—a poor reflection of the Leader of the House’s oversight of the legislative agenda. The amendments watered down that weak Bill even further, and there is no guarantee that banning section 21 evictions will ever happen. Is it any wonder that the Renters Reform Coalition has pulled its support for the Bill?
Despite the Government finally passing their Rwanda legislation, it has emerged that around 100,000 illegal migrants will languish in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense in perpetuity, unable to be removed or even processed because of the Government’s last piece of legislation. How is stopping the small boats going?
The Government promised levelling up, yet the chair of Middlesbrough football club, a former Ben Houchen superfan, said that the Tees Valley Mayor is
“giving away our children's future”
through his management of the South Tees Development Corporation. He is right, isn’t he?
In perhaps what will become the Conservatives’ most lasting and damaging legacy, there is more worrying evidence today about generation lockdown, among which there is not only massive school drop-out and absenteeism rates, but more drinking, because this Government failed to put in place the catch-up support needed. It is no wonder that this country is crying out for change. How is the Leader of the House feeling about her party’s chances next week? We all want to know. I see that on the day we return after the local elections there is a general debate. Is that in anticipation of something, or to keep Government Members away from Westminster? We are still waiting on a lot of important legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I will do so now before she comes to her peroration. Earlier in her questioning, she referred to matters in the Scottish Parliament, and asked the Leader of the House her opinion on them. She has just asked the Leader of the House her opinion on a general political matter. This is business questions, and it is about the business of the House. I let the hon. Lady’s questions go very wide. They do not have to be exactly about the business of the House for next week, but they ought to relate to the business of the House of Commons. If, rather than asking the opinion of the Leader of the House, she asked a question about the business before us, that would be perfectly in order.
Lucy Powell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to ask why legislation such as the Criminal Justice Bill and the Sentencing Bill is not coming forward the week after the local elections, as has been demanded by Members on both sides of the House. Many other things could also come before us for debate, yet the day we come back after the local elections is very light. I wonder why that is. Has the Leader of House cleared her diary for that day, too? Is that why we have such light business that week? No matter how much the Government’s Mayors and candidates hide behind their green and purple branding, there is no escaping the fact that they are standing on the woeful record of this Tory Government.
We have a plan—they might not like it, but we do—to bring down waiting lists, to deliver lower energy bills, to build more homes and, as we have set out today, to reform our railways in the interest of the travelling public. It is not more free cash, as some have said. The truth is that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for this chaotic mess to continue. Is it not the case that if people want change, they have to vote Labour next Thursday?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I send my thoughts and sentiments to all those affected by the appalling events in Wales? I hope that the community recovers swiftly. May I also place on record my sadness at the loss of our former colleague Frank Field, who was MP for Birkenhead for more than 40 years? When I was going for candidate selection for the Conservative party, one of the questions I was asked was who in the Labour party I most admired, and my answer was Frank Field. Many knew him for his relentless work combating poverty and its causes, but he had many other interests that he pursued with equal vigour. I was particularly pleased to work with him on trying to secure the building of new ships in the UK, and he was also a fellow Brexit campaigner. The connection he had to the people he served, and the duty that he felt towards them and never wavered from, was profound, and I send my deepest sympathy to all who knew and loved him.
May I also pay tribute to Dame Elizabeth Gardiner DCB KC for her service as first parliamentary counsel? She was the first woman to hold that role in its 150-year history, and she has had a very busy eight years. I place on record my thanks to her for her service and wish her well. I also congratulate Jessica de Mounteney, who succeeds her.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) asks me about the SNP. I am sure that we will come to that shortly, but the Greens leaving the coalition provides the Labour party with an opportunity. I thought a memo had gone out to Labour Front Benchers saying that they should go easy on the SNP, with a view to perhaps forming some sort of coalition or alliance with it north of the border.
The hon. Lady and her party talk a good talk—she just has on childcare, ensuring that people have a warm and secure home, and levelling up the Tees Valley—but it is the Conservatives who are delivering the largest expansion of free childcare. It is the Conservatives who have built 2.5 million new homes and are getting people on the housing ladder, and it is the Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen who has delivered regeneration for the Tees Valley and an employment rate 3% above the national average.
In response to the point about the need for more and better competition, the Conservatives are introducing legislation and schemes to strengthen the arm of the consumer, such as FairFuelUK’s PumpWatch. Labour’s answer reduces competition further and is a return to the British Rail sandwich. The hon. Lady touts the move that was announced today. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), says that the change will be done at zero cost, but we read that it will actually require £10 billion of additional funding and will not deliver any fare decreases or improved services. It is socialist ideology over practicality. Even Lew Adams, ASLEF’s former secretary-general, said:
“in the public sector, all we got were cuts, cuts, cuts. And today there are more members in the trade union, more train drivers, and more trains running. The reality is that it worked, we’ve protected jobs, and we got more jobs.”
The hon. Member for Manchester Central raises the issue of Rwanda. In response to the British Government’s need to control foreign nationals’ access to the UK, the Conservatives have been doing the hard yards of institutional and legal reform. We have introduced legislation establishing the Rwanda scheme, and the Home Secretary is working to modernise the international frameworks that govern it. In contrast, Labour has voted hundreds of times against that legislation, and says that it will scrap the Rwanda scheme even if it is working. Instead, it is pursuing a quota scheme that would see immigration rise. We will never do that.
The hon. Lady talks of change, but the Labour party has not changed at all. While Labour Members have been scoffing prawn cocktail, they have been devising 70 new business burdens that they plan on introducing. While posing next to submarines, Labour Members—several Front-Bench Members—voted to scrap our deterrent and are refusing to match our baseline on defence spending. While Labour Members criticise and sneer at those who celebrate the St George’s flag, they are allowing some of them to occupy the Labour Front Bench. Today’s Labour party is packed with the same old socialists and a few new plastic patriots, and no amount of window dressing—
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Leader of the House finishes, I can take a point of order if it relates directly to the matters that we are discussing.
Dawn Butler
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is misleading the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House just said—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Hold on. The hon. Lady cannot accuse the Leader of the House of misleading the House. That would be quite wrong and, if the Leader of the House had done something along those lines, I would have stopped her immediately. If the hon. Lady means that she disagrees with the Leader of the House, that is a different matter.
Dawn Butler
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a matter of fact that Labour Members celebrated St George’s day. We all put it on our social media, and the leader of our party has made a point of wrapping himself in the flag. The Leader of the House is completely incorrect in what she just said to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. Lady means that anything that the Leader of the House might have said would have been inadvertently misleading.
Dawn Butler
I hope that the Leader of the House will correct the record right now.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I wanted to take that point of order while the Leader of the House was still on her feet. I am quite sure that the Leader of the House did not intend to make any misdirection. Would she care to take that point?
Penny Mordaunt
I had finished my response to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), but I am happy to add: the truth hurts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us be clear: we will be taking questions that relate to the business of the House. I call the vice-chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I bring good news from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), whose daughter-in-law is recovering. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is good news, and he hopes to be back next week.
May I add my condolences to those sent to the family of Lord Field? I had the opportunity to meet him when I was a student at Liverpool University. He was a redoubtable campaigner on everything he believed in and one of those people I profoundly respected.
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, in addition to the business that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 9 May there will be a debate on miners and mining communities and a debate on the BBC mid-term charter review. If we are given the time for Thursday 16 May, we have offered a debate on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on women’s state pension age, which is extremely well subscribed; and if we are given 23 May, there will be a debate on UK arms exports to Israel and inequalities in dementia services.
In further good news, we have filled up the business for Westminster Hall on Tuesdays until the Whitsun recess with debates on: costs associated with illegal immigration; the impact of smartphones on social media; and the introduction of UK-made zero-emission buses in the UK. On Thursday, we have debates on global health agencies and on Global Intergenerational Week. The Backbench Business Committee has been aiming to get as many debates on the agenda as possible, but, as always, if Members have requests, they should please submit them by Friday lunchtime and we will deal with them as appropriate.
Over the weekend, I spoke to a number of women who are frightened of walking home after dark. The fact is that the rise in crime in London has been dramatic, the rise in knife crime has been dramatic, and the Metropolitan police is the only force in the country that has failed to meet its recruitment target. Could we have a statement next week on actions that the Government will take to ensure that we have the police that are needed in London to make women—and men—feel safe when they are travelling home?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for stepping up and making that very helpful announcement on all Backbench Business in the forthcoming weeks. I am sure the whole House will want to send good wishes to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his family. It is very good news that his daughter is making a recovery; we send all our love to him and his family.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the failings of the London Mayor. London has got less safe and crime is on the rise, particularly violent crime, and it is no surprise to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are very concerned about that. Unfortunately, many of the areas he mentions are the responsibility of the Mayor of London, but there is something that not just Government Members but the general London public can do in the coming days, and that is vote in a new Mayor of London. I think people will agree that you are indeed “Safer with Susan”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Scottish National party spokesman.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I associate myself with the comments about the dreadful news from Wales, and of course those about Frank Field.
I make no apology for starting this week where I finished last week. The Leader of the House may recall that I asked for a debate on the new Brexit border controls due to come into effect next week. Answer came there none, but things became clear later on, as the Financial Times reported within hours of my question:
“The UK Government has told the country’s port authorities that it will not ‘turn on’ critical health and safety checks for EU imports…because of the risk of ‘significant disruption’… the new border systems will not be fully ready.”
It is being called a phased implementation approach—very “Yes Minister” speak from some hapless civil servant trying to excuse the sixth such delay. More delay, more confusion for business, but no statement from the Minister.
Scotland’s importers, exporters, agricultural and hospitality sectors and businesses large and small are all at their wits’ end because the Tories insist on imposing their Brexit folly on us. Brexit is estimated to be costing salmon producers—the largest food exporters in the UK—up to £100 million a year. Tourism in the highlands and islands has been devastated, with staff shortages affecting 45% of businesses to date. Brexit was named as the main difficulty for 44% of businesses in Scotland trading overseas.
Before the latest delays were announced, the chair of the Chilled Food Association, which represents 30 trade and professional organisations, said that every time there is a proposal from the UK Government, people invest in paperwork and computer systems and then the Government change the rules again. Since 2021, £200 million will have been spent on just one export health certificate. A recent report found that the UK economy had shrunk by £140 billion, with the average citizen around £2,000 worse off—thanks to good old Brexit that Scotland did not vote for.
Yet this place shuts its eyes to the devastating impact that Brexit has had on people’s lives and businesses. Scots are accustomed to being ignored, overruled and treated with disdain by this Government, but being dragged out of the EU against our will has been an economic and social disaster for us. No party can claim to be the party of business and back Brexit, so I urge the Leader of the House to overcome the vow of silence—an omertà between the Tory and Labour parties—and tell us when we can have an urgent debate on the effect of Brexit, starting with this disastrous delayed Tory trade tax.
Penny Mordaunt
Despite what the hon. Lady says, we have now become the fourth largest exporter in the world. I will not annoy the hon. Lady by listing how well the nation is doing on trade, fishing and many of the things that we wanted to see improved to give people new opportunities, because I know it would irritate her. It is no surprise to me that SNP Members do not want to face realities: they do not want to engage with the trader support service that is supporting business very well or with the fact that we are creating an interface directly between the IT systems in businesses and the legacy Government systems such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that we reduce bureaucracy for those traders and support them in meeting their ambitions. It is no surprise that SNP Members do not want to deal with the reality of the situation given the reality of the situation now for the SNP, a minority Administration with their failings and some very serious issues that we all know are now subject to prosecution as well as investigation. Not even the Greens want anything to do with them.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to Lord Field? He was one of my political heroes, and I first met him when I was a 20-year-old student, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). As his constituency Member of Parliament, I am delighted to inform the House that he continued to correspond with me on the issues and campaigns that he cared about until the very end of his life.
As part of our national health strategy, we rightly emphasise the importance of eating healthily and taking physical exercise, but we do not take sleep into account. Today the Sleep Charity published “Dreaming of Change: a Manifesto for Sleep”, which highlights the serious mental and physical health problems that a lack of sleep can cause among both children and adults. Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time on the vital public health importance of getting more sleep?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that incredibly important issue. We could run a positive public health campaign; rather than just telling people not to drink or smoke, we should also ask them whether they have had enough sleep. We should be proud of the research that has been done in the UK. Professor Russell Foster at Oxford University has done amazing work which is leading to improvements in the general population, but particularly among veterans who have suffered blast injuries and lost their sight. I would be happy to raise what my hon. Friend has said with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, because I think that that would be a very good initiative.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I first associate myself with the comments about our old friend Frank, whom I knew for many years.
It is widely acknowledged, in this Chamber and elsewhere, that Iran is run and controlled by a bunch of clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who have now taken to attacking people on British soil, which is a bit of a break with what used to happen. However, there is a difference of opinion over how we should respond, especially with regard to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I know that we have had plenty of statements and urgent questions about Iran, but could we have a statement next week?
Penny Mordaunt
The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a regular theme at business questions, and throughout the week. These are very serious matters, and he is right to point out that this activity is not limited to the strait of Hormuz or other parts of the world but is taking place on British soil. Our citizens are being threatened, and many representatives such as councillors and others who hold public office are having to be protected as a result of the appalling campaigns against them and the death threats. I will ensure that those at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will encourage them to update the House.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The United Kingdom has a vibrant classic car sector, but the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency seems to have taken against it somewhat, forcing cars that have been subject to modest repairs or even heinous crimes such as the fitting of seatbelts to have Q-plates. As I know from attending the Heritage Matters Insight Day event held by the Historic & Classic Vehicles Alliance during the Easter recess, and indeed from my own inbox, the problem seems to be getting worse. I have raised it numerous times in the Transport Committee, but it is not going away. May we have a debate in Government time to iron out these issues and ensure that the Department for Transport gets a grip on the DVLA’s attitude to the classic car sector?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with the Transport Secretary, as Transport questions will not take place again until 16 May. This is not just about people’s personal vehicles; it concerns an enormous number of UK businesses. We have a huge export market, and Britain is, of course, very well known for its motor sport and motoring in general. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign on this important matter, and will ensure that all relevant Secretaries of State have heard what he has said.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Frank Field was a great mate. We even forgave him, in the end, for his daft views on Brexit. He was a great guy and a great colleague, and we miss him dearly.
I genuinely seek the guidance of the Leader of the House this morning—I am not trying to make a political point. We have worked very hard to ensure that standards in this House are of the highest order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has played a big part in that. This Parliament’s reputation is based on standards here and in the upper House. Is it possible for her to have a conversation with her senior colleagues in the House of Lords? I do not know whether she saw a recent article in The Sunday Times that said the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, a former MI6 chief in Moscow, is a lobbyist for a man in the US who is believed to be involved in Russian gang crime. Everybody knows there is a group in the upper House that is very close to Russia. Could we look into this issue? It will impinge on Parliament if it is not dealt with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Is the hon. Gentleman relating his question to the business of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that others will follow his learned example.
Penny Mordaunt
I will answer the hon. Gentleman with the same good faith with which he asked his question. If he has serious concerns about anyone on the parliamentary estate, he needs to raise them formally, and in the appropriate way, with the House authorities. That would be the right course of action if he had genuine concerns about anyone.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I do not quite agree with the last answer given by the Leader of the House. We know who we are talking about, and I agree with those on the Opposition side of the House.
May we have a debate in Government time on the Three Rivers development in Mid Devon—I have mentioned this before—which is now becoming a cover-up and a financial scandal? The chairman of the scrutiny committee has done a runner and slunk off to rented accommodation in Bampton, which is a disgrace. I am afraid this is now becoming a serious issue for local government. Mid Devon Council has no scrutiny, no responsibility, and absolutely no idea what it is doing. In Government time, can we talk about local government that is not taking its financial responsibilities seriously and is covering up major issues?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about what sounds like a very concerning issue that is affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents. Given that the next questions to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are not until June, I will ensure that he has heard what my hon. Friend has said today.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I add my condolences to the family of Lord Field? He was an exceptional man and an outstanding politician, and I had the privilege of knowing him for two years while he was still a Member of Parliament.
Working or studying in other countries has wide-ranging benefits for young people. Perhaps the saddest outcome of Brexit is that the number of young people from the UK working and studying in EU countries, and the number of young people from the EU working and studying here, has dramatically reduced. In order to reverse this worrying trend, last week the EU proposed youth mobility visas, but the Government rejected them outright, even though they would have brought a wide-ranging and welcome boost to our economy—I mean that in good faith. Can we please have a statement from the Government on why that proposal was rejected outright and how they propose to boost youth mobility between EU countries and the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She will know that our approach has been to widen opportunities for our citizens and give them more choice about where they might want to study abroad. I think that the Secretary of State did put out a statement explaining why the scheme was not deemed to be in our interests, and it was due to the fact that it was not going to be reciprocal.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
This is the first time in my 19 years as a Member of Parliament that I have raised this sort of frustration and complaint, so I hope my right hon. Friend realises how serious it is.
Over a month ago, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about a British citizen whose husband is being held illegally in a foreign country without trial. I have tried repeatedly to ask the Foreign Secretary for a reply and I went to the Deputy Foreign Secretary to chase things up, but still nothing. I find it wholly unacceptable that the Foreign Secretary has not replied to me in over a month of correspondence when I am raising the rights of a British citizen whose husband is being kept in appalling circumstances abroad. It is his duty and responsibility to respond in writing to Members in a timely fashion. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please take this issue up for me with the Foreign Office?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear that. This is clearly an incredibly pressing matter. If my hon. Friend gives me further details after business questions, I shall raise it immediately with the Foreign Office and ensure that he is able to speak to the people he needs to speak to in order to do his duty by his constituents.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House advise me on how we can bring Ministers to the House to account for their decisions on arms export licences? As she knows, the Select Committee on Business and Trade assumed responsibility for the oversight of arms export licences in January. At the beginning of April, an important legal judgment was issued by the International Court of Justice. We therefore held our first hearing on licensing arms exports to Israel yesterday. We gave Ministers 20 days’ notice to attend, together with detailed questions in correspondence. I am grateful to the Deputy Foreign Secretary for his apology to me yesterday for the Foreign Office not fielding a Minister. I have had no such correspondence or contact from the Department for Business and Trade.
This is not acceptable. Ministers are politically accountable to Parliament. This is a matter of extreme interest to the House, and it is part of Ministers’ legal responsibility that they are politically accountable. Will the right hon. Lady advise me on what steps she can take next week to ensure that a Minister answers for the judgments the Government have made?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes those new responsibilities very seriously. As he knows, both Departments have made it clear that they are perfectly happy to attend and be scrutinised in respect of those decisions and to answer questions on the Government’s position. Twenty days’ notice sounds like a long time, but he will understand that the Ministers in question may have travel obligations and might therefore have been unable to make the specific date. I know that he knew last Friday that they would not be able to attend the session that took place yesterday. I also know that the Deputy Foreign Secretary spoke to him and, I hope, reassured the right hon. Gentleman of his intention to field a Minister for his Committee. Even though I am not telling the right hon. Gentleman anything he does not already know, I hope that reassures him that Ministers do intend to attend. I am very sure that no stunts such as those that took place yesterday will be required to get them to do so.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a statement on Harlow Council and the success of its Conservative administration? My right hon. Friend will be aware that Conservative-led Harlow Council has cut and frozen council tax for three years and protected vital public services, as well as clearing the housing backlog and securing millions of pounds in Government investment to build an even better Harlow. Harlow’s Conservative council is currently led by the youngest council leader in political history, Mr Dan Swords, who is a former apprentice in my office. Does my right hon. Friend agree that how Harlow Council leads, other councils should follow, and will she encourage everyone in Harlow and across the country to vote Conservative on 2 May?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for congratulating Dan and the other councillors who have done so much for their community. Dan is proof that age is not relevant, but political hue is. Elsewhere, in the west midlands, Andy Street has been following Harlow’s example. He has never raised any taxes, and he does not charge an additional precept, yet he has brought billions of pounds of investment into his region, in stark contrast to Sadiq Khan in London, who has increased the mayoral precept by more than 70%, and Labour-run Birmingham, which is increasing council tax by 21% to pay for its errors. It is very clear: if you want better services at lower cost, vote Conservative.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Like many across this House, I was utterly floored to hear the sad news of my friend Lord Field’s passing. His was a life devoted to helping those in poverty, especially children. We worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on hunger, the School Holidays (Meals and Activities) Bill and the Food Insecurity Bill. We then set up Feeding Britain, a national charity that continues to alleviate hunger across the UK, but we both knew that our charity should not have to exist in a country as rich as ours. With over 4 million children in poverty, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be a fitting tribute to our dear friend to hold an urgent debate on ending child poverty?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting Frank Field’s legacy, as many other Members have done. The work of the organisations that he helped to found, and that he worked with, will continue. The hon. Lady will know that we brought forward a cost of living package that now exceeds £108 billion. She will also know that there are hundreds of thousands fewer children living in absolute poverty, and over a million fewer workless households. We stand on that record, and we want it to continue.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Wrexham will soon have the largest trading estate in Europe, with more businesses seeking to invest, expand and export. As businesses grow, so do opportunities. I was pleased to visit the newly established centre for international trade support, which helps companies to identify, understand and reach global markets. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Clive Barnard and his team on their new business venture, and consider a debate in Government time on export opportunities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to this new venture? I am sure we all want to send our good wishes to Clive and his team on their new business venture. Wrexham’s international profile has grown in recent times, which is providing a strong hook for local businesses to take advantage of global markets and our new trade agreements.
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work to ensure that her constituency is on the map. The investment zone will make Wrexham the absolute leader in the field of advanced manufacturing, as well as in the creative and digital sectors. We expect this to encourage further growth, with up to £160 million of support for the zone, which will help to protect tens of thousands of existing skilled jobs and create many thousands more. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her part in it.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The counter-disinformation unit, now known as the national security online information team, has a remit to tackle the greatest national security risks facing the UK, and misinformation and disinformation cause risks to elections. Disturbingly, a racist letter riddled with misinformation and disinformation was posted to all Hindus in Brent and Harrow. It attacked our current Mayor of London and our Assembly member, Krupesh Hirani, incorrectly stating that Sadiq and Krupesh do not care about Hindus, which is a complete and utter lie. With one week to go until the mayoral election, will the Leader of the House condemn the letter and ensure that the NSOIT investigates it? May we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the NSOIT’s role?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. She will know that there are ways in which any concerns about things such as election literature can be addressed. Clearly, if she thinks a criminal offence has been committed, she should raise that with the police. I suggest that that is the best course of action for her.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Our sanctions on the Russian Federation are much needed, but they are being undermined by a weak, politically compromised global anti-money laundering system, which means that Russia is not on any domestic money laundering blacklist. May we have a debate on how we can strengthen our anti-money laundering regulations, particularly to make sure that Putin cannot use UK businesses to finance his illegal war in Ukraine, as he is now?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter. She is absolutely right. She will know that in March the Treasury launched a consultation on anti-money laundering regulations to further strengthen the effectiveness of that regime, and to ensure that they responding to emerging changes and that the burdens placed on businesses are appropriate. I will make sure that the relevant Minister has heard her interest in this matter and that she is updated.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Unfortunately, this morning many of my constituents find themselves in the same position as the two now former Scottish Green Ministers, in that they have been cut off from government services. In Kirkliston, the post office is going to close, which will deny many of my constituents access to vital government services and to cash, as no banking facility is available within easy reach by public transport. I know that the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is very busy dealing with the Horizon scandal, but could he come to the House to give us an update on why so many post offices across the country are closing and leaving constituents in the same position as mine?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that that is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency and I will certainly make sure that the Post Office Minister has heard what she has said today. I will also ask officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to get in contact with her office. She will know that where this has happened in communities and people are not able to get access to free cash services, or banks or other bricks-and-mortar premises are closing, there are ways in which to ensure that businesses and individuals have access to those services. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has a good best practice guide on how that can be delivered.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I bring good news from Kettering, where Kettering General Hospital has become the first hospital in the whole of Europe to insert into more than 100 patients the very latest, special, state-of-the-art implantation loop recorders, which diagnose heart rhythm disturbances such as atrial fibrillation; in fact, 178 local patients have now benefited from that innovative diagnostic tool. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House congratulating Kettering General Hospital and its superb cardiac team on that wonderful achievement?
Penny Mordaunt
We all look forward in business questions to more good news from Kettering. I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done in supporting the hospital and in securing the £1.2 million-worth of funding that was given to expand and upgrade its facilities. We can all be proud that the hospital is one of the first in Europe to fit those devices, which will make a huge difference to patients, and I am sure that everyone here would want to congratulate Kettering General Hospital and its cardiac team on that landmark achievement.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is standard practice in schools, universities, the NHS, local government and Government Departments that if somebody is arrested for or charged with a sexual or violent crime, a risk assessment will be carried out, followed potentially, if necessary, by an exclusion or suspension from work, pending further investigations and, if necessary, a trial. The Standards Committee and the House of Commons Commission agreed that we should have something similar for this House, which has been sitting on the stops now for several months.
I understand there are perfectly legitimate questions about exactly how that should operate, but I do not understand why the Leader of the House has not tabled the motion that came straight from the House of Commons Commission, which I would think was her duty as Leader of the House. Secondly, why has she pulled the vote on at least one occasion and still not given us a date to have that vote? We need to burnish the reputation of this House, not tarnish it. Will she please give us a date, as soon as possible, so that we can have a debate and come to a legitimate view on how we can progress this?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope to be able to do that at the next business statement I give. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have had a number of pieces of legislation that we have needed to act on, some of which was not expected, so we have had to find space for that. He will know that as a member of the Commission I take this matter seriously and I would be very happy to bring forward that debate, and I hope it will be announced in my next business statement.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend referred to the rail network and was rightly critical of Labour’s latest proposals to make changes to that. My constituents want improved services on the Brigg to Cleethorpes and Barton to Cleethorpes lines, and on through services from Grimsby and Cleethorpes to London. Could we have a debate about the state of the rail industry and the way forward, and how we can improve services for customers, rather than tinker with the structure?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for his continuing campaign to ensure that his constituents can get better rail services and we are maintaining good value for money. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard his request. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
For years now, victims of the Philips Trust scandal have been trying to get answers to their questions on how they can recover the money building societies, including the Newcastle Building Society, encouraged them to invest in family trusts with unregulated companies. They have been let down at every level, especially by the Financial Conduct Authority. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to meet with me and representatives of the Philips Trust Action Group to address this issue quickly?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation and I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing efforts on behalf of her constituents. I will certainly ensure that the Chancellor and relevant Ministers have heard her plea.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
To try to make up for its financial mismanagement, Labour-run Kirklees Council is looking to introduce new car parking charges, punishing hard-working families and destroying our high streets in our towns and villages. In a recent damning report, independent auditors said about Kirklees:
“We have been unable to satisfy ourselves that the Council has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources.”
Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on the failings of this shambolic Labour-run council?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. When councils use motorists and people going about their daily business as some sort of cash cow to plug gaps in their budget due to their mismanagement, communities end up in a downward spiral. People cannot go to the shops, they do not use those services and it is a disaster. Whether in Kirklees, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham or London, Labour is waging a war against working people, and motorists in particular. That has grave and dire consequences if we want vibrant communities. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue his campaign against the council and that particular initiative, and I urge everyone who has the opportunity to vote in a Conservative council.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
First, may I offer my deepest condolences to Frank Field’s family?
Thames Water has been putting vast amounts of sewage into both the Thames and its tributaries in my area, including the Pang, the Lambourn, the Kennet and Foudry Brook. In addition, we had an incident recently where hundreds of Reading residents had their water cut off for two days and we are still to see any compensation for them. A similar incident happened in Surrey. To make matters worse, the company now has mounting debts and there is a looming financial crisis threatening its very future. Is it possible to have a statement, so that Ministers can explain their actions to tackle these serious problems?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Member will know that the infrastructure programme to upgrade our water and particularly our wastewater systems is the largest of its kind in the world. He can track progress against those infrastructure plans on the dashboard of the Water UK website. Good progress has been made. Just to give one statistic, when we came into office, less than 7% of overflows were monitored; the figure is now 100%. Those overflows will come down very swiftly in the coming years. But there are particular issues with particular companies, and I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his particular concerns about these aspects of Thames Water, as the next questions is not until 9 May.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Residents in Lancashire have had an excellent police and crime commissioner since 2021 in Andrew Snowden. He has prioritised community and neighbourhood policing, recognising that visible policing is a key way to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. But that is now under threat: Labour's candidate in the upcoming election is the same person who held the role previously and did so much damage to Lancashire policing. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of community policing and stations?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that my hon. Friend will know how to apply for a debate and I would encourage her to do so. I understand that, when the Conservative police and crime commissioner came into office, he found out that his predecessor could balance the books only by shutting police stations, including Accrington, Burnley, Chorley—Mr Speaker would be very disappointed to hear that—Morecambe and many others, and by making redundant a large number of police staff: the precise people we want in touch with their communities daily. In contrast, Andrew Snowden, who has been Lancashire’s PPC, has reopened four police stations and is currently constructing two more. That is the kind of service that people want. They want bobbies on the beat and to be able to call in to local police stations. That is exactly why Andrew Snowden should be re-elected.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
In March, I was very glad to get together with the local police and local residents at the Royal British Legion club in Greenford to thank Arthur Gray for 30 years’ service in the Met police. In recent years, Arthur has been a police community support officer for Greenford and Northolt in my constituency. On his retirement, he said that
“the biggest joy has been working with residents. It has been a privilege to support the local community and build up long-lasting relationships.”
Will the Leader of the House join me in sending my sincere and heartfelt thanks to Arthur for all his years of service to the local community?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving not just me, but the whole House the opportunity to say a big thank you to Arthur for his many years of service. It is because of him that our communities are not just safer, but stronger and better places in which to live.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And I expect the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask for a debate on the matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you, we shall take that as read on this particular occasion.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
In stark contrast to London, in Essex, our brilliant police, fire and crime commissioner Roger Hirst has cut knife crime by over 11% in just one year and his hotspot policing model to tackle antisocial behaviour is now being rolled out around the country. But education is also key to tackling knife crime, which is why I am working with Roger Hirst and with our city cabinet member, Councillor James Courtenay, who is also up for election next week, to bring the Knife Angel to Southend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue cutting crime, particularly knife crime, is to re-elect Roger Hirst next week and all Conservative councillors on 2 May, and can we have a debate on how we should strengthen the successful PCC model?
Penny Mordaunt
Well done on being in order. I saw you nod approvingly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes—vote for Roger and James for that positive trend to continue. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work to get the Knife Angel project to come to her constituency. We should put on record our thanks to that fantastic organisation, which has done so much to strip out knives from communities and educate young people.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of all the opaque and arcane procedures in this place, the Reasons Committee procedure is perhaps one of the most opaque and arcane, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on seeking to amend and oppose the Government’s reasons for objecting to the Lords amendments to the Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in the Committees this week. I note that the minutes show that the Labour Members sat on their hands throughout those meetings. I wonder whether we could make the procedure more transparent simply by the Government publishing their reasons alongside the motion to disagree, so that we can debate the context of the Government’s reasons for rejecting the Lords amendments, and perhaps speed things up without additional votes.
Penny Mordaunt
Well, there is an offer from the hon. Gentleman. I am always interested in any innovation that hon. Members propose. The House collectively will make the rules of this place, but the reasons the Government have been pursuing the legislation and want it to achieve Royal Assent in a particular form have been well set out on many occasions from this Dispatch Box.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that we have had many debates in this place relating to the Nolan principles and MPs, but in just days residents across Bedfordshire will vote in the police and crime commissioner elections. It has been reported that, back in March, the police and crime sub-panel found that the Conservative candidate and current PCC Festus Akinbusoye has had serious complaints against him upheld. The panel determined that Akinbusoye has used “unreliable statistics”, made “false and malicious accusations” and was “disrespectful to members of the public”, including calling one of them the “enemy”. Surely residents in Bedfordshire deserve better, and deserve to know the panel’s full findings, so will parliamentary time be allocated to the importance of the Nolan principles for those in all elected positions, and the processes that hold them to account?
Penny Mordaunt
The Nolan principles, which run across every aspect of public life, are very important. They play a very important role in all our standards and proceedings, both in the House and in Government. I have to say that what the hon. Lady says is in stark contrast to my experience of the gentleman she refers to. He has an amazing track record of serving his community. I have been out on patrol with him in the area that he serves. He is very highly regarded by the people I spoke to on the doorstep.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Do not shout from the Back Benches. I have already said that this is not a time for asking the opinion of the Leader of the House. This is business questions. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asked her question perfectly well; it is her comments from a sedentary position on which I am commenting. This is not about opinions. She asked a perfectly reasonable question, and it has been answered.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I add my voice to the tributes paid to Frank Field, whose assistance and wisdom was of great help to me as a newly elected constituency MP for a nearby seat. He is held in very high regard by my constituents, and his legacy will live on in Ellesmere Port through Ellesmere Port College and the Frank Field Education Trust.
Can we please have a debate on private parking companies? I have had a number of instances recently where these companies seem to be operating by their own rules. Constituents have put appeals in against fines. There seems to be absolutely no consideration given to technical issues, or wider questions about why tickets have been issued. Frankly, it seems to me to be nowhere close to approaching justice in the sense that Members of this House would understand.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have been suffering due to poor practice by those firms. He will know that under the coalition Government, new measures were introduced to crack down on things such as clamping on private land and other practices that came from such firms, and this Government take those issues very seriously. If the situations are not resolved, I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he gets the next opportunity on 16 May at Transport questions, or at other opportunities or other business questions, should name the companies. He can do that, which I find gets people in such companies to focus on resolving these issues more sensibly.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
In last week’s Backbench Business debate on the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths, I asked whether it is now accepted that it was a mistake to give the respiratory suppressant drug midazolam, as part of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG163, as treatment for those suspected of having covid-19. I also asked, should there be legal cases proving unlawful killing linked to overdoses and toxicity from midazolam, who would be held criminally responsible. Would it be the then Secretary of State for Health, NICE, NHS England or the individual doctors and nurses who administered the drug? Those questions were not answered. Can we have a statement from a Health Minister? The evasion and gaslighting on this issue has got to end.
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Gentleman will know that he can either write to the Department or put in a written question, and that there are timeframes under which those questions have to be answered. He has had many debates on these issues and he has ample opportunity to raise these questions and get answers from Ministers.
I would also caution the hon. Gentleman on some of the things he is saying and, again, some of the things he is putting on social media. I do not think that any healthcare professional or nurse administering a vaccine is doing those things for any other reason than the care of the patient in front of them. If there is an insinuation that they are doing them for other reasons and that they should face consequences for doing their duty in the NHS or other services, people might get the wrong idea, so I urge him, because I know that is not his intention, to be clear in his communications on these matters.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
In recent weeks, I have been running a Selby Shoutouts competition, where local people can nominate for recognition small and medium-sized enterprises that make an outstanding difference to our local community. I have been blown away by the responses, with 90 different firms nominated by some 150 local residents. Local people clearly know how crucial SMEs are to our local area, so please can we secure time for a debate on support for SMEs across the wonderful county of North Yorkshire?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a brilliant initiative, which is not only helping to raise the profile of those fantastic local businesses in his constituency, but demonstrating that business is a force for good in the world and in his local community. He will know how to apply for a debate, but I wish the initiative very well.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Although the House will be debating the Buckland review of autism employment later today, the Government have just axed a £100 million scheme to support people with disabilities into work. Does the Leader of the House agree, therefore, that the Government are merely paying lip service to supporting those in need? Can we have a debate or statement from the Government to outline and explain their confused position?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and all Members who have assisted him, on the work they have done to produce this new focus on an important area. I do not think there is any inconsistency with his work or the Government’s work in this area. A million more people with a disability now have the dignity of a pay packet than in 2010, not just because of our welfare reforms, but because of the health and work support. Such disabilities are now viewed with much greater focus than a few years ago. Progress is being made, but as my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, more work is needed. I encourage everyone to take part in the debate later today.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I want to add to the tributes to the late Frank Field. He was a graduate of Hull University, of which we are very proud in Hull. I worked with him on ensuring that this House delivered the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and he was one of the first campaigners around the contaminated blood scandal back in the 1980s.
On the forthcoming business of the House, Ministers have told us how important the Criminal Justice Bill is; yesterday, the safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), told the Home Affairs Committee that it would be back before the House imminently. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the potential Conservative rebellion over the criminalisation of the homeless is one reason that the Bill is not mentioned in the forthcoming business, and whether the Bill will ever come back before the House?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Lady has made her points well, and I shall ensure that the Home Office has heard them. As she will know I am going to say, further business will be announced in the usual way, but I will take it that she is keen to see the Bill come back.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments about Frank Field. Although his seat was elsewhere, he told me on day one that he was a proud Chiswickian.
Week after week, MPs have pushed Ministers to restore UK funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and all the while we have seen lives lost in Gaza. The stock response has been that we await the Colonna report—well, that report was published on Monday, and yet there has not been a peep from the Government. Can we have an urgent statement on this? Now that Canada, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Japan and, in fact, the EU have all unfrozen funding, when will we?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has heard what the hon. Lady has said. These matters are taken extremely seriously. She will know that the Deputy Foreign Secretary has been very concerned about ensuring that there is aid and support going in to support people who have been displaced and those who need food, medical attention and many other things in Gaza and elsewhere. There may be other issues beyond the security issues the hon. Lady referred to—UNRWA has for a long time been a very financially fragile organisation. We want to ensure that the people in need, whom we wish to support, are getting aid, and that it is done in a way that does not compromise security.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Can we have a debate on the kindness of charity fundraisers? Next month, the team at Pollokshields early years centre are running the Cancer Research UK Race for Life as “Jamal’s Warriors” in memory of 10-year-old Jamal Aslam, who tragically passed away last year from a soft tissue cancer. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should thank all the researchers who work so hard to ensure that no families have to go through losing a cheeky, funny and incredibly sweet boy like Jamal to cancer?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to send our thanks and good wishes to the early years centre, and again to place on record our admiration and thanks to all those working in these important fields of research. We have made dramatic progress in the past few years on many therapy areas—cancer in particular—and we know that survival rates are improving dramatically.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
British farmers are operating on ever narrowing margins in a volatile market. It is hugely concerning to farmers in my constituency that red diesel suppliers are encouraging farmers to stock up in case of price rises. Brent crude oil has soared by 16% over the past three months. There are conflicts that may escalate in the middle east, Europe and South America that could make prices rocket even further. I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on the impact of red diesel prices on British farming.
Penny Mordaunt
That is an important matter, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. She can raise it herself at the next Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 9 May, and she will know how to apply for a debate, but I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what she has said.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Tonight is the annual awards of the Music Producers Guild. The awards would have been largely a male preserve for a lot of the 23 years that I have been in the House, but tonight, for the first time, over half the nominees are women, thanks to pioneering work by women producers and engineers such as Olga Fitzroy, Catherine Anne Davies and Hannah Peel, which is why we should have a debate on the Government’s decision to reject the recommendations in the Women and Equalities Committee’s “Misogyny in music” report. Naomi Pohl, the general secretary of the Musicians’ Union, has described being shocked at the fact that the Government have rejected the recommendations, and the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), said:
“We have had platitudes and reassurance, but still no action”.
Is the Leader of the House comfortable with what the Government have done? If she is not, will she facilitate a debate to explore it further?
Penny Mordaunt
I think the improvements in the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gave at the start of his question are something to be proud of and show that improvements are being made. I will certainly ensure that the relevant Department has heard what he has said. Given that I am a member of the Government, I stand on the Government’s position.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Christian Wakeford.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday, the Official for National Statistics released its reports on alcohol-specific deaths registered in 2022. There were 10,048 deaths related to alcohol, which is a 32.8% increase on pre-pandemic levels and the highest number on record. It has been over a decade since the Government last set out an alcohol strategy. Can we have a statement from the Government on what they are doing to tackle the issue and the stigma of addiction?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. I will ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard what he has said. He will know that, in addition to that strategy, a huge amount of work has been going on in all parts of our healthcare system to ensure that the right interventions are getting to the right people, including, notably, alcohol screening services at hospitals, which for many are now part of the standard processes to go through when people are taken into accident and emergency, helping to identify those who need support, particular interventions, and, of course, an expansion of those services.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we proceed to the next item of business, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Pedicabs (London) Act 2024
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024
Points of Order
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that you have indicated Royal Assent to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, have you been given any indication by the Government as to whether they will make a statement to the House on when they intend to send people to Rwanda, which people they intend to send to Rwanda, and what will happen to the tens of thousands of people whom they will be unable to send to Rwanda?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for her point of order—[Interruption.] Did I just call her a gentleman?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Quite. Take two: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I understand why she makes it, but it is not one for the Chair. She knows that she and many others have debated these matters for many, many hours in recent weeks, and I have personally heard her speak for hours, cumulatively, on the subject. The Government have replied to her questions and those of other hon. Members in so far as they are able to do so to. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Lady’s request for even more time for this business on the Floor of the House, but I should point out for the sake of clarity that many, many hours have been spent on that business in recent weeks.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the course of business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) raised a point of order, understandably concerned about something the Leader of the House had said implying a lack of patriotism on the part of some Members of Parliament. As I said earlier, I have been a Member for 23 years, and as a regular attender of business questions, I do not remember it previously being possible to raise a point of order during the course of business questions. Can you clarify from the Chair for all of our benefits whether that is now something that is going to be permitted, in case we want to do the same thing in future?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is actually not a point of order, but a direct challenge to me on a decision that I took about an hour ago here in the Chamber. That was a matter of my judgment: the hon. Lady indicated to me that she wished to raise a point of order about a matter that had immediately occurred in the Chamber, and I took the decision that it was reasonable for her to raise a point of order on that precise subject at that precise moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, the hon. Gentleman cannot come back. I am not having a debate with him about procedure. The rule is that a point of order can be taken at any time if it is pertinent precisely to the matter that is currently before the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make a further point, but I am not having a debate with him in the Chamber, either about my judgment or about procedure.
Kevin Brennan
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not attempting to call your judgment into question, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. I was simply trying to clarify what the position is for hon. Members who might wish to raise points of order. You have made that very clear, and I thank you for that clarification.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, and I am glad the matter is now closed.
Ofsted’s Work with Schools
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now proceed to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Education Committee. I will shortly call Mr Robin Walker, the Chairman of the Committee, who will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed, not to the relevant Minister, but to the Select Committee Chair. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement on the Education Committee’s report on Ofsted’s work with schools, to which the Government’s response has been published today. The response from Ofsted was published on 11 March.
I put on record my thanks to the Clerks of our Committee for their brilliant work, to our expert advisers, and to all the teachers, leaders, inspectors, former inspectors and education experts who contributed evidence. Members of the Committee, as well as our witnesses, brought with them experience of the inspection process, both from the receiving end as teachers and governors and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), as a former inspector. The pressures of local elections mean that many Members who contributed to the report cannot be in the Chamber today, but I am glad that we were able to make all of our recommendations unanimously, and I am grateful for the contributions of Members on all sides of the House.
Our inquiry was called in the midst of heightened concern about school inspection following the tragic events at Caversham Primary School. While the inquiry was not focused on that specific case and had to be careful to not trespass on the work of the coroner, which was ongoing for much of its duration, I pay tribute to the family of Ruth Perry for the dignified and thoughtful way in which they have sought to raise concerns and ensure that lessons are learned and reforms made. The coroner reported just before the end of the inquiry, and we included in our report a commitment to follow up on all of their recommendations, something that I know every Member of my Committee is looking forward to being able to do. We will be taking evidence from the new chief inspector before the summer.
The inquiry heard widespread agreement on the importance of an accountability system and the roll of an independent inspectorate, but also concerns about stress and anxiety experienced by school staff due to high stakes nature of Ofsted’s inspections. The report highlighted criticisms of how inspections are carried out and reported, the workload they generate and the complaints system. We heard concerns from current and former inspectors about the length and depth of inspection, and we took evidence on the impact of successive frameworks over time. The Committee heard that relations between Ofsted and the schools sector have become extremely strained, and that trust in the inspectorate was worryingly low.
We said in our report that the appointment of a new chief inspector provided a crucial opportunity to restore trust and, in that regard, our first recommendation was that in his Big Listen with the sector, His Majesty’s chief inspector must ensure that he listens to wide range of views, including those of teachers, school and trust leaders, governors, parents and pupils. In doing that, he must ensure that Ofsted is genuinely open to engage and willing to reflect on where it needs to improve.
We are glad that the process is treated seriously in both Ofsted and the Department’s responses. Ofsted said:
“We have done much since January 2024, but more—much more—is to come. We launched the Big Listen on Friday 8 March 2024. We want to hear from those we work with and those we work for. We know that we need to do more. Ensuring inspections are carried out with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect and conducting a listening exercise are not enough. Action must, and will, follow. We fundamentally believe that those actions should not be based on the views of…HMCI alone. That is why we are conducting a serious exercise to gather the views of as many people as possible, where nothing is off the table.”
The Department places welcome emphasis on that Big Listen in its response today. It mentions the process no fewer than 20 times in the space of 15 pages of response.
The inquiry heard serious concerns about the single-word judgment. The Committee has made recommendations to both Ofsted and the Department for Education to rethink the process, to consider serious alternatives and to look at what other jurisdictions do inside and outside the United Kingdom in that respect. As part of that, we encouraged them to use this process to engage in serious discussion about genuine alternatives. We also encouraged them both not just to focus on the overall judgment but to encourage schools and the Department to look at all the sub-judgments reached within Ofsted reports, and publicise those just as much as they do the headline judgment.
In its response, Ofsted was clear that that is within the scope of the Big Listen. The Department stressed what it sees as the significant benefits of the current system, but was clear that it is continuing to listen to the sector’s views and to look at alternatives to four single-word judgments, including looking at “various approaches taken internationally”. That in itself would represent a welcome shift from some of the language used during our inquiry, and a welcome acknowledgment of the need to look at alternatives.
I am disappointed, however, that this morning the Department appears to have gone further and ruled out changes to single-word judgments, prejudging the outcome of the consultation process and making any consideration of alternative systems academic. Ministers would be better advised not to rule out any changes. Both they and Ofsted would be right to ensure that feedback from the Big Listen and a wide range of comparisons can be taken into account before final decisions are made.
We are glad that both Ofsted and the Department have emphasised the importance of all judgments, and set out steps to improve the visibility of sub-judgments, as per our recommendation. In conjunction with that, the Committee said that DFE should reassess its policy of maintained schools that receive two “requires improvement” judgments being required to become academies. We also called on the Department to ensure that regional directors who decide academisation orders genuinely take into account the views of local stakeholders before making a decision, and called for an increase in its accountability to this House. DFE response said it keeps this policy
“under review and will have regard to stakeholders’ views.”
It also argued that presumptions in favour of academy orders are rebuttable, and that
“in each case the particular circumstances of the school, and the needs of its pupils, will be assessed in the round, in order to establish the best course of action.”
The Department confirmed:
“In line with civil service convention across government, Regional Directors continue to be available to give evidence if called before Parliament.”
However, it went on to say:
“Approval for their attendance before the Committee rests with the Secretary of State”.
I hope that my Committee or its successors will be able to hear evidence directly from them. Given the wide scope of their powers and their importance within the system, that is an important element of accountability.
The Committee also found broad agreement that inspections are not long enough to cover the full framework and give an accurate picture of a school’s performance. Given that there is finite funding, we accept that any increase to the length of inspections would require a decrease in their frequency, and we are clear that we do not wish to return to the previous exemption for outstanding schools, which stayed in place for too long. On balance, we recognise that there is a case to be made for a small reduction in the frequency of inspections to increase their value, length and depth.
In the short term, the Department should work with Ofsted to enable the inspectorate to reduce the frequency of inspections to approximately five to six years for good and outstanding schools, and three to four years for schools judged “requires improvement” or inadequate. That should be supported by better use of risk assessment to identify the schools most in need of inspection. Ofsted should use the additional resource released by that change to enable inspections to be carried out in more depth. In the longer term, the Department should support Ofsted in making a strong case to the Treasury for additional funding to carry out in-depth inspections. Funding for Ofsted should not be seen as being in competition with school funding, and any additional funding for the inspectorate must not result in less funding being made available to schools.
Ofsted has been clear that it wants to consult on the regularity and depth of inspections in the Big Listen, but it pointed out reasonably that changing the five-year timeframe is not in its gift, as it is set in legislation. The Department has rejected our recommendation that it should consider a reduction in the regularity of inspections to increase their depth, but it has acknowledged that it will work in partnership with Ofsted to ensure that it has appropriate resources to carry out its programme effectively. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ofsted stated:
“We very much welcome the Committee’s commitment to supporting us in asking for additional funding for more in-depth inspections”.
As an example, we could inspect schools in greater depth by ensuring that every inspection is led by one of His Majesty’s inspectors, and that each inspection team has an additional inspector. That could provide a number of additional benefits; it would allow the team more time to look at a school’s unique approach, and allow for a dedicated focus on a national priority area in each inspection. Ofsted has costed that at £8.5 million a year, and we hope that Ministers will consider that proposal in future spending review discussions with the Treasury.
Another area of key interest for the Committee is multi-academy trust accountability. My predecessor as Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), called on Ofsted to have a role in that. That was also called for in the “Beyond Ofsted” report by Lord Knight, and the idea has enjoyed strong cross-party support in this Chamber. The Committee argued that the Department for Education should urgently authorise Ofsted to develop a framework for the inspection of MATs, and set out plans for building expertise and capacity in this area. In its response, Ofsted stated:
“We welcome Recommendation 28, and the Committee agreeing with our evidence that inspection of MATs is appropriate and inevitable.”
The DFE’s response said that it
“continues to actively consider how we might strengthen”
scrutiny of MATs. It added:
“This might include the role of Ofsted. We look forward to hearing views on this issue through Ofsted’s Big Listen”.
We welcome the change in tone in this response. When the former Schools Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), gave evidence to the Committee during our inquiry, he appeared strongly opposed to MAT inspection. We have pressed the urgency of action in this space, and it feels like it is a step closer. Given the large and growing role that MATs play in the school system, we continue to believe that mechanisms for their accountability need to be stronger.
I welcome the acceptance of our recommendations 1, 2, 9, 15, 17 and 27 by Ofsted, and its commitment to exploring recommendations 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 20 to 22 and 24 and 25 through the Big Listen. The one recommendation that Ofsted rejected was for an independent review of the challenges for inspector retention, but it did so on the basis that it feels that it already knows the answers to those challenges, and that a review would not be good use of taxpayers’ money, which we can understand.
We welcome the respect that the Government have shown to the Big Listen through their response, but recognise that many will not be satisfied by conversations and will continue to call for more urgent reform. The Government’s response highlights important changes, including for those schools rated inadequate purely on the basis of safeguarding. Those can be rapidly re-inspected, which is certainly a welcome change. There are hopeful signs about the new chief inspector’s intent, but the Committee will continue to hold him and the inspectorate to account for how they deliver.
I want to give Members the opportunity to respond, so I will conclude by saying that what our Committee heard overall is that Ofsted is needed and plays an important role in the system, but it needs to change. We will continue to hold the Department and the inspectorate to account for the change that we need to see.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for bringing forward this statement, following the Committee’s much-needed inquiry and report on this issue. In the report, he rightly extends his condolences and gratitude to the family, friends and colleagues of Ruth Perry, all of whom have contributed to this report at an incredibly difficult time. Labour welcomes the findings on Ofsted single-word judgments, but the Government seem to have defended the indefensible in their response. The current system is high-stakes for teachers and low-information for parents. Like his cross-party Committee, we believe that it must be reformed.
Further to the Chair’s comments, does he agree that the Government should look again at the response that the Committee received from those across the sector, who overwhelmingly want to reform the system, just as Labour considered the sector when setting out our plan for report cards, which has been welcomed by the former chief inspector? Similarly, on inspection of multi-academy trusts, the Government seem simply to have ignored a recommendation that Ofsted’s chief inspector has called “inevitable”. Will the Chair therefore outline what conversations he has had with Ministers on the issue, and any further work that his Committee might do in this area?
Finally, the Committee’s inquiry did not appear to extend to inclusion being part of Ofsted inspection frameworks. Labour proposes to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities have access to clear information, and that their parents understand their child’s school in that regard. Will the Chair and his Committee look at that? I thank him again for the thorough and timely work that he and the Committee have undertaken, and for the light that it has shed on this important and pressing issue.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response. She raised some important points. I expressed my disappointment that the Government seem to have ruled out our recommendation that we move away from single-word judgments and explore alternatives. It is important that the Big Listen is a proper process of listening and engagement, and that it can reach its own conclusions. I am more inclined to agree with what was said in Ofsted’s response about nothing being off the table.
There is an extremely strong case for MAT inspection. That case has been heard by those in all parts of the House; it is a reflection of the maturity of MATs and their huge contribution to the school system, which the Government’s response acknowledged, that we are having this debate. There was a significant move forward in the tone of the Government’s response on that. I welcome the fact that they are actively exploring the options. Of course, that needs to be done proportionately, and we need to ensure that it does not increase the burdens on any school. I am sure that can be worked through by the Department.
I have some sympathy for the idea that inclusion needs to be considered. In previous Committee sessions— I know this happened under the previous Chair—we tested that idea in many respects, and some previous recommendations of the Committee have been fed into the framework, such as the recommendation that no school should be rated good or outstanding for performance unless its performance for special educational needs pupils was good or outstanding. It is important to acknowledge that some progress has been made on that front, but I believe that balancing attainment and inclusion is always important, throughout education, so that was an interesting contribution. Of course, because that is not part of Government policy or the current framework, it was not within the terms of reference for our inquiry.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report, and I welcome the recommendation on Ofsted supervision of MATs, but may I turn to careers advice in schools? My first ever speech in the House of Commons—my maiden speech—was about trying to encourage more schools to encourage students to do apprenticeships, as well as to go to university. While much progress has been made on this issue—we are in a very different world in 2024 from that of 2010 —there is still much more work to be done, including on informing students in all schools that there are great T-level offerings, and great apprenticeship offerings as well. Does he agree that Ofsted needs much tougher measures on ensuring that schools encourage students to take up all the apprenticeship and other skills offerings, so that students have choices other than going to university?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend knows more about this issue than almost anyone else in the House, and has made a huge contribution to the debate on skills. He is, of course, absolutely right about the importance of careers advice, and of signposting people towards vocational opportunities in schools. This was the subject of an inquiry and a report that he as Chair bequeathed to me when he moved on. It was about careers education, information, advice and guidance. In that report, we made recommendations that Ofsted should align its work on personal development and its work in this space with the Gatsby benchmarks. The work he did on putting those benchmarks more prominently in our education system, both as Chair of the Select Committee and subsequently as a Minister, was vital to the success of that process, so I congratulate him on that. We absolutely think that needs to be part of this role.
Our one wariness was that we did not want to recommend a huge slew of things that Ofsted should be adding to the inspection process or framework, because we did not want to increase the workload or pressure on teachers and leaders. All these things need to be looked at in proportion, but there is absolutely a place for ensuring that schools provide the right careers advice and range of opportunities to students.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their excellent work on this very important matter. I also pay tribute to my constituent Ruth Perry, who was an outstanding headteacher. The events at Caversham Primary must never be allowed to happen again. I also commend the work by Julia Waters, Ruth’s sister, and local campaigners and heads in the Reading area, as well as others across the country, who have listened and called for Ofsted reform. I offer my wholehearted support for an end to the single-word judgment, and for wider Ofsted reform, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on our Front Bench. What steps does the Committee Chair believe the Government should take now, given their unfortunate announcement this morning? Does he believe that the response from the Department for Education and Ofsted so far has been remotely adequate, particularly the suggestion about using a former chief inspector to mark Ofsted’s homework, and continuing to ignore concerns raised by him and the coroner about this serious matter?
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has engaged on this issue, and for rightly championing the interests of his late constituent and her sister, who has engaged with this process in good faith throughout. She has had meetings with the Secretary of State and the new chief inspector of Ofsted, and I know that she is not satisfied that the Government have gone far enough. I urge the Government and Ofsted to ensure that the Big Listen is a genuine process that takes nothing off the table, and to respond in depth to the feedback on that.
It is absolutely legitimate for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to raise concerns about the independence of the person appointed to look into this matter, but I point out that other organisations, including the National Education Union, not notably a friend of Ofsted, have praised the appointee for their independence. This matter will have to be considered carefully. It is vital that the process is seen to be conducted independently of both the current and former management of Ofsted, and that it offers genuine insights into what went wrong at Caversham and how that can be put right. It is important to acknowledge the changes in both the Ofsted and Government responses today—the steps already taken to provide better support to headteachers, and the change in the approach to schools that are rated inadequate on one factor, which will get the opportunity to be reinspected. It is also worth putting on the record that subsequent to inspection, Caversham Primary was rated good, which shows that that approach can and should work.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
As a member of the Select Committee on Education, I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent statement, and for the fantastic report on which it is based. I also thank my hon. Friend for being a brilliant Chair of the Committee. It was an almost impossible job to take on, given the big boots he had to fill. I see the former Select Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), in his place; he literally put the words “degree apprenticeship” into the “Oxford English Dictionary”.
I want to talk about the report’s recommendation 28. The Committee strongly recommended that the process for multi-academy trust inspections be delivered urgently. That recommendation was also made by predecessors and others, and was indeed was accepted by Ofsted. I am pleased about the change in tone from the Government and that they are “actively” considering this, but does my hon. Friend agree we need to go further? Does he agree that, given that MATs are now the biggest part of the education system, we need to go beyond “actively” considering? We must accept these recommendations, and the MAT inspection regime should be delivered urgently.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
A long time ago when I was a teacher at Radyr Comprehensive School and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was a pupil there, we were inspected. It is a necessary part of the system but can be very challenging for all concerned. I very much welcome the—if I may use a single word—outstanding report from the Select Committee today and I am very disappointed that the Government have not accepted its recommendations. One is about extending the length of time before schools that are given an outstanding rating are re-inspected. Some years ago the Government had to row back from allowing schools rated as outstanding to go uninspected for as long as 15 years, with the result that on re-inspection more than 80% were downgraded. As we have heard over and again in the Chamber, that was a statistical fix to make it look as if there were more outstanding schools in the country. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that if the period were extended we could avoid leaving schools with a previous outstanding finding to languish uninspected when there are in fact problems in those schools?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, as he often does. When I became a Minister in the Department, one of the first questions I asked officials was whether that exception was still in place and whether if it was we could end it, and I was relieved to discover that my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) had already removed that “outstanding” exception. If he had not done that, I would have done so, because I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the length such findings were in place. That was clearly a mistake and it built up pressure in the system, which was deeply unfortunate in some circumstances. We have now gone back to a five-yearly cycle.
What we were querying was whether we could be more risk-based in our approach. All schools should be inspected on a regular basis, but we made the argument for good and outstanding schools to be inspected slightly less regularly, and for those which require improvement or are judged inadequate to be inspected more regularly, so that they have the opportunity to turn themselves around quickly.
I understand and respect the reasons why the Government might not think that that is appropriate and feel the need for a level playing field. They rejected that [art of the recommendation, but we anticipated that they might do so and therefore also recommended that they needed to help Ofsted make the case to the Treasury for the funding necessary to do all the inspections properly, particularly for schools in need of a turnaround—schools which know they need to improve and which need the resource and support of an in-depth inspection that engages with teachers across the board. That is the case we were making and I read the Government’s response as a partial acceptance of that case, albeit not one that puts us at any risk of returning to a situation where schools languish uninspected for long periods of time.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House is both the best and worst workplace in the world for those with a disability or disadvantage. The reason I raise this is that constantly lifts do not work, buttons do not work in lifts, doors do not work properly and toilets are always out of order and take months to fix. Just below the Chamber on the lower ground floor there are toilets that have been out for almost six months on end and no one ever seems to be there doing anything to fix them. This is not acceptable any longer.
I have been here for 14 years and, while every single member of staff is incredibly kind, especially the Doorkeepers, I find it incredible that things have got worse over the past 14 years in terms of doors being shut, lifts not working, buttons not working, lift doors not working, toilets being out of order, and people who should not be using disabled toilets using them. We do nothing about it, yet we publish press statements saying we are inclusive and diverse employers but that means nothing to anyone. So may I urge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers to look at this issue with the Serjeant at Arms and get these facilities fixed once and for all so that people with disadvantages can go about their business without having to worry about doors being shut and toilets being broken and the other things I have mentioned?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, it might be appropriate to raise those matters with the Administration Committee as well, but I will certainly ensure that his comments are fed back. The Deputy Serjeant at Arms is present, and I am sure that he will be one of those feeding it back. I am very sorry to hear of the experiences that the right hon. Gentleman has described. Of course it is right that those facilities should be in good working order, and that there should be proper provision for people with disabilities.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We really should not be having too many points of order at this stage, but I will take the hon. Lady’s point of order if it relates to something that has just been said.
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following what was said by the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I wanted to add that I have recently noticed that additional security doors have been introduced around the estate, and they require a pass to be swiped. There is nothing to enable blind or partially sighted people to understand that, and in an emergency it could cost them their lives. Could this be added to the list of things that you will feed back, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will certainly add that to the feedback that we will give.
Backbench Business
Lesbian Visibility Week
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.
Lesbian Visibility Week was founded in 2019 by the publisher of DIVA Magazine, my good friend Linda Riley—and I am delighted to welcome Linda to the House today. For the past five years we have set aside this week in April to celebrate and uplift lesbians everywhere, from all backgrounds and all walks of life, and we are a community that grows stronger each and every year for it.
Forty years ago this year, I took my mum to see the “Rocky Horror Show”, and at dinner I told her that I was a lesbian. I distinctly remember her response: “Yeah—and?” Of course she already knew; as a colleague pointed out yesterday, if I was ever in the closet, the closet must have been made of glass. I was incredibly lucky to have friends and family to lean on when I faced and overcame the many barriers that most lesbians have to deal with because, sadly, it is still the case that for so many such support is just not there. However, that does not mean that my journey and dealing with coming out was easy. There was stigma, and there were people our community was losing and not talking about. The feeling of loneliness and isolation led me to move to Newcastle in 1989, and until I was elected to represent my wonderful Jarrow constituency in 2019, I barely came back to London.
Seeing so many people celebrating and recognising Lesbian Visibility Week gives me hope that this and future generations of lesbians will be accepted—and that is thanks to those who came before us, paving the way. When I hosted a reception in Parliament on Monday night in partnership with DIVA magazine and the LGBT Foundation, there was an incredible turnout from activists, campaigning organisations, and Members of both Houses. I am so grateful for the fact that so many friends and colleagues joined us at our first ever parliamentary reception: I think that was the largest number of lesbians that we have ever had in Parliament at any one time. At the event we heard about the media narrative that lesbians are disappearing, but we are not. We are in our ascendancy: there are more lesbians than ever. The number of women who identify as lesbian has increased by 64% since 2014. Instead of being erased, we are multiplying.
As many Members will know, I have dedicated most of my political career to campaigning for LGBTQIA+ equality. My first political activism was campaigning against section 28, and highlighting the damage that it did and continues to do to our community. To go from campaigning against section 28, to stop LGBTQIA+ people being forced to hide, to holding a debate on lesbian visibility in the gayest Parliament in the world is some feat, and something that an 18-year-old me could never have imagined. However, I also could not have imagined that 40 years later I would still be challenging the same homophobic language, including comments about LGBTQIA+ people being a danger to children. It has to be said that the slurs currently being thrown at the trans community, and at me for being supportive of that community, are a carbon copy of the hate we faced in the 1980s.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech. Does she agree that hate is hate? Some of the hate we hear reminds me of the hate that my parents heard when they were being subjected to vile racist abuse.
Kate Osborne
Yes, hate is hate, and it is unacceptable in any form. We defeated it then, in the ’80s, and we will defeat this hate and discrimination now.
Let me return to my coming out. Although I had a supportive family, when I came out “lesbian” was still a dirty word, a word thrown at me at school in a derogatory way. If you were a lesbian you were seen as unnatural. You were chased out of girls’ bathrooms—that has, in fact, happened to me in recent years—and you were sexualised by men far older than you, which is something that lesbians still face today.
It was 10 years after I came out that I bought my first copy of a magazine called DIVA. There was nothing else like it at the time; there was nothing else for my generation that helped lesbians to feel included, and that magazine helped me to feel less alone. That was 30 years ago—so happy birthday, DIVA, and thank you.
In the last 30 years DIVA has been a lifeline for many women, and it was DIVA and Linda Riley who launched Lesbian Visibility Week. DIVA is much more than a magazine: as it tells us, it is a movement. It has an annual Power List, and for the first time, in 2024, I have made it. To travel from being that young, lonely lesbian 30 years ago buying my first copy to being included in this list has made me feel honoured and deeply grateful. It is a privilege to be named alongside colleagues and other brilliant activists, including the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). Today, I feel proud to see so many LGBTQIA+ women basking in the freedom to explore their sexuality in ways that many women could not, only a few years ago.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady has reminded me of a thought that I once had: something that I felt very strongly when the Bill that became the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed. I had a young daughter, and I felt that if I had two daughters and one was straight and the other was a lesbian, I would want them to have the same quality of life, the same protection under the law, and the same right to love whoever they wanted to love. Does the hon. Lady feel that we have made progress towards a situation in which that will be the case?
Kate Osborne
Unfortunately, I have to say that we have gone backwards in recent times. I thought we would be further forward than we are, but when I look back to some years ago, I see that that is not the case.
Weeks like this really matter. They show solidarity, and they enable us to support each other and help us to celebrate our differences, embracing the whole LGBTQIA+ community. Too often people seek to divide us, but as the theme of this Lesbian Visibility Week shows, we are unified, not uniform. We are here to be fabulous in our differences and to be seen, to let others know that they can be their true selves. We have to use our own experiences to help people, and to use our platforms to give LGBTQIA+ people spaces. That is what Lesbian Visibility Week is about. That is why I am holding this debate.
An often-used expression is that we stand on the shoulders of giants, which we do, and I want to honour just a few of the wonderful women who have given so much to our community and been inspirational to me and to so many others. In the 1970s, Maureen Colquhoun made history by becoming the first openly out lesbian in Parliament. Her courageous act in the face of media hostility has meant that so many of us can stand in this Chamber today and follow in her footsteps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) is an iconic lesbian in Parliament. The first to come out in office, and now a dame, she is a role model to many, breaking down barriers as the first lesbian Minister and always fighting for equality by using her platform to stand up for our community.
Of course, there are brilliant women who are the driving force behind so many political and campaigning movements. Lisa Power was one of the founding members of Stonewall in 1989. Like me, she was a volunteer at the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard. Lisa has led a decade-long fight on behalf of people living with HIV.
There are women such as the brilliant Sue Sanders, the founder of LGBT+ History Month, and Baroness Barker, who led the first ever debate in the other place on lesbian, bisexual and transgender women’s health. There are historic queer trailblazers such as Anne Lister, who was fabulously represented by Suranne Jones in “Gentleman Jack”. I was distraught when I found out that “Gentleman Jack” would not be returning for a third season. For the first time, I saw someone on TV who represented me, so much so that I was even told that we look alike, to which I responded, “I wish!”—but I do love wearing a waistcoat.
The wonderful Sophie Ward is a trailblazer for LGBTQIA+ rights. As an actress and model, she was one of the first high-profile women to come out as a lesbian in 1997. The brilliant Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is a wonderful campaigner and the founder of UK Black Pride. Dame Kelly Holmes is a sports hero to us all. She is an icon who was instrumental in the fight to address the vile mistreatment of LGBTQIA+ veterans and those who are still in the Army, and she is now empowering women through her Athena Effect events.
Of course, there is also Linda Riley, one of my best friends, who is the founder of Lesbian Visibility Week and publisher of DIVA magazine. She is a titan who has done so much for lesbians, and who I know will do so much more in her lifetime.
Let us not forget another good friend of mine, Nancy Kelley, who is in the Gallery today. Nancy has recently been appointed as the director of Lesbian Visibility Week. She has already been a trailblazer as chief executive of Stonewall and an award-winning human rights and social justice campaigner. She is a champion of LGBTQIA+ rights who always stands up for our community, so I am excited to see what bigger and brighter things are next for Lesbian Visibility Week in the years to come.
Although there is a lot to celebrate, it is important that we do not forget the challenges that lesbians still face. In fact, in celebrating Lesbian Visibility Week, I have faced some awful homophobic remarks on social media, simply for being open about my sexuality. I have been called a “nonce” and had threats on Twitter— or X. I receive a constant barrage of homophobic abuse, but such abuse will not stop me standing here or speaking up on behalf of my community. The toxic culture on social media, and the toxic narrative from the Government, at times, in pushing their war on woke makes LGBTQIA+ people less safe. We have seen a rise in hate crime, and we must make active efforts to support our non-binary and trans community, who still face unique day-to-day challenges simply for being themselves and loving who they love.
Last October I led a debate calling on the Government to remove the additional financial burdens for same-sex couples who need to access in vitro fertilisation. The Minister committed then to a timetable to remove the barriers and bring forward a statutory instrument to end the postcode lottery for same-sex couples seeking IVF, so where is it? The legislation has still not materialised. Before qualifying for IVF on the NHS, same-sex female couples must fund six cycles of artificial insemination, so it comes as no surprise that too often people are being priced out of starting a family. My constituents Holly and Leanne have had to choose between buying a house or having a baby—a decision that couples should never be forced to make. They have been unable to afford IVF and are now, like so many, looking at alternative routes. We need to see action, because many cannot wait any longer.
Today we are told that young people are too woke and that it is fine for young LGBTQIA+ people when they come out, yet the reality is often very different. LGBTQIA+ children are twice as likely as others to be bullied. Some young LGBTQIA+ people are still kicked out and made homeless when they come out, and many do not feel safe where they live. The Albert Kennedy Trust reported that 77% of young LGBTQ+ people gave family rejection, abuse or being asked to leave home as a cause for their homelessness.
A DIVA survey in 2024 showed that less than a third of LBQ+ women and trans people in the UK feel safe where they live. To have this continue today is dystopian. Just yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about IVF provision and pointed out that the LGBTQIA+ community are being let down. His response was that the Government have been “excellent”, but I can tell the House that none of the lesbians I have spoken to this week thinks the Government are excellent at anything.
We must use our platforms and our ability to speak up, to highlight our diversity and to look at the impact of intersectionality. We must consider how the world is for lesbians of colour and lesbians with disabilities, and how the gender health gap and gender pay gap negatively impact on us all but in different ways.
I am privileged to be able to stand up in Parliament and say all this, because in a third of countries across the world, including 64 UN member states, it is illegal to be LGBTQIA+. Until we have won equality for all people globally, the fight goes on. I wish everyone a happy and safe Lesbian Visibility Week.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. At first I thought, “What am I going to say in this debate?”, because I am not a lesbian, but I have stood in this Chamber and spoken on many issues. The thing is, you do not have to be a lesbian to speak in this debate; what you have to be is a good person. You have to be a person who believes in equality and fairness—that is what is important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, Lesbian Visibility Week was created by a bestie of ours, Linda Riley, who is in the Gallery today. She has fought all her life to be heard and to be her authentic self, and what she wants more than anything is for everybody else to have that same privilege. Yesterday we watched a documentary, “The Life of Riley”. As an activist and a butch lesbian, Linda has supported everybody in the LBGTQI+ community. She can do that and support trans people because the two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe it is more important to know what is in people’s hearts than what is in their pants, and that we should spend more time talking about what is in people’s hearts. Nobody wants to erase lesbians—honestly, I would feel sorry for anyone who tried—and this debate highlights that.
I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—I am sorry if I mispronounced her constituency—talking about her experience when she was a teacher. Her girlfriend was sick, and my hon. Friend was unable to talk about it in her workplace because she was not out. We should all think very carefully about that in relation to allowing people to be their authentic self. Another lesbian, Sally, came out at work during Lesbian Visibility Week. It stopped a lot of men coming on to her, which she was grateful for, but some other men thought, “Oh, I’ll give it a try.” Get over it. Some women are lesbians—get over it.
Linda welcomes lesbians and makes them feel safe in her environment. I have watched how she looks after the people my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow mentioned—people like Kelly Holmes, who kept her sexuality secret because of her time in the Army, but who is now an activist and advocate, and engaged to a wonderful, beautiful woman called Louise. That is the power of allowing people to be their authentic self and just allowing them to live, giving them space to grow and be happy.
I do not care who people love. As long as it is legal, love who you like. The world would be a better place if there was more love. There is too much hate right now, and I think we need more love in the world. As my hon. Friend said, in some countries, two consenting same- sex people are not allowed to love each other. That is wrong.
Linda talks about LGB with the T. The trans debate has been extremely toxic. The debate in this House last week made trans kids and trans adults feel like they do not exist, like we want to erase them. This is the mother of all Parliaments; we should not have debates in this place that make people feel that they do not exist or that we want them to be erased.
I spent a lot of time over the weekend speaking to Dr Cass, and I am grateful to her for her time. She was advised not to travel on public transport because of her report—before it was even published. Some people, including some MPs, implied that I had contributed to that, but Dr Cass said I could quote her saying that that is “absolutely ridiculous”. I felt really hurt and offended because they encouraged a pile-on on me over the weekend. I say to those who think they can silence me and stop me sticking up for marginalised or minoritised groups, think again. That is literally what I have been elected to do in this place—to speak up for people who may not be able to speak up for themselves—and I am not going to stop.
People are making things up about me. They should read my book, which I am happy to plug. “A Purposeful Life”—out in all good bookshops now—is clear about why I am an activist and why I campaign the way I do. As I discuss in my book, the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 have no bearing on each other. Therefore, you can be a feminist and stick up for the rights of women, and also be a trans ally. That, I think, shows the very best of humanity, and we all need a little bit more of that.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing it and on her excellent opening speech. I also thank our fantastic ally, our hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for all that she does—for the pertinent points she makes about supporting the whole LGBT community and for all the work she has done in standing up for trans people. I must not forget our hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), an outstanding champion who, long before many of us were in Parliament, was flying the flag in what was a very lonely place at the time.
It was also a real privilege to attend the event on Monday that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow organised and to meet Linda Riley, the publisher of Diva, and Professor Sue Sanders, the co-founder of LGBT History Month. Just to be among such people is such an honour for someone like me. Thinking back to 30 years ago, Diva was quite a lifeline for people as isolated as we were in south-west Wales, perhaps not knowing anyone quite like us and certainly not wanting to be open about ourselves because we were worried about society’s reaction.
At the time of section 28, I was in a relationship with another woman, both of us were teachers and this was very inhibiting. As I have previously said in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, it was a very difficult time—a time when it was not easy to challenge the homophobic bullying that was going on then and which still goes on now. I thank all those who were braver than I was and came out sooner than I did.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I apologise to the House for intervening, but I have to go with my wife to celebrate her 17 years as chancellor of the University of Hull.
The hon. Lady is rightly talking about the bullying and the fear she experienced. There has been some of that more recently. I started to become conscious of some of the issues when Kathleen Stock was being bullied mercilessly in Sussex. We ought to be careful. If I were to make a speech in this debate, I would say that two of the greatest events I have been to were the LGB Alliance conference meetings, which were picketed by people who seemed to hate the people inside. They would not come inside to listen; they were shouting outside. That kind of attitude has echoes of what speakers today have talked about.
Dame Nia Griffith
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has said, there is real need to approach these things in a calm and appropriate way, and to respect everybody’s different ways of manifesting their humanity.
What for me is very telling is the fact that I came out when my relationship broke up. It is almost impossible to hide grief. It is ironic that, having spent a considerable period not being open and trying not to make it obvious that we were in a relationship, it was when we did not “need” that hidden approach any more that I came out. It is incredibly difficult to explain to people why you are in such a state of grief if you do not explain the relationship. What was interesting about that was not only the reaction of very supportive friends, which was great, but finding that some people had never guessed; I was quite shocked and surprised by that. It was strange to realise that we were more hidden than we understood, because people did not see lesbians. That shows the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week.
Perhaps because society is so male-dominated and women are marginalised in many respects, or perhaps because women are more likely to be seen doing things together, holding hands or going on holiday with other women, we were not even noticed. One of the important aspects of raising lesbian visibility is enabling people to be their natural selves and enabling other people to recognise that. Of course that has meant over the years that women were perhaps not the subject of homophobic legislation. In many ways, it reflected the role of women as society was then and that women were very marginalised and not seen. That is perhaps part of the wider picture of where women were.
There have been workplace stereotypes: women have to dress in a certain way and behave in a certain way towards heterosexual men, or they are expected to do so. When they do not, be that as lesbians or as heterosexual women, it can be interpreted negatively, which has often held lesbian women back over the years. It is a form of discrimination and stereotyping that has had pernicious results.
It is not enough for us to hope that attitudes can change. Hope is not enough. We all have a responsibility to challenge, and to use our legislative powers to strengthen our challenging through legislation. We were proud, as a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, to do a number of important things that helped LGBT rights, including ending the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, ending discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes, and giving LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children. Of course, we scrapped section 28, which was very important for people like me, but we also banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
We also included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes. Sadly, we have seen a rise in hate crimes in recent years, to which I draw the Government’s attention. In particular, I ask that more should be done to tackle homophobic, including transphobic, hate crime.
Of course, we created civil partnerships and awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, there is a long way to go on equal and fair access. I hope the Minister has listened to what she said today, and to what she said to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and I hope progress can be made on this sooner rather than later.
Although we have made progress, we know that, in many respects, there is a lot to do to stop attitudes regressing in this country but also internationally. Women are hardly noticed or recognised in many countries and, if they are, they are certainly not allowed to be in same- sex relationships.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. With others in this House, I hope I can play my part in securing greater lesbian visibility.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Lesbian Visibility Week should be about lesbians, but the website put up this week says it is about
“celebrating the power of sisterhood by uplifting incredible LGBTQIA women and non-binary people”.
I think it is a real shame that, in the week about our visibility, the lesbian identity is being subsumed into a number of other identities that have nothing to do with being a same-sex-attracted woman.
Many lesbians fundamentally disagree with this, and I want to speak up for them today. They need someone to speak up for them. It is a mark of how marginalised lesbians have become in our society that so few hon. Members have turned up today. It is the reason I am speaking from the SNP Front Bench, despite having been removed from it several years ago, partly for being the wrong sort of lesbian and one who does not believe that the rights of men who say they are women should trump those of lesbians.
Before I go any further, I declare an interest as a supporter of LGB Alliance and a member of the advisory boards of both the Lesbian Project and Sex Matters. But my main interest in this issue is that I am a lesbian. I came out in the 1980s, when homophobia and lesbophobia were still rife across the UK, and my first activism was against clause 28. In those times, like many other lesbians, I was physically assaulted in the street and mocked for being a lesbian. Lesbians of my generation also faced losing our jobs and our children.
For a long time, we thought that lesbophobia had gone, but lesbophobia is back, and it has been created by those who think that the rights of lesbians are conditional on them accepting gender identity ideology. They are not. Lesbians are same-sex-attracted women, and we are protected on that basis from discrimination, bullying and harassment under the Equality Act, under which our protected characteristic is sexual orientation. Our protection is on the basis of our sex, not our gender. And as J. K. Rowling has said, without sex there can be no same-sex attraction. That is why lesbians like me fight the replacement of the biological reality of sex with the nebulous concept of gender.
I said a moment ago that the rights of lesbians are “not conditional” on accepting gender identity theory. That is a direct quote from my friend Allison Bailey. As some Members will know, Allison Bailey is a black lesbian barrister who nearly lost her job for standing up for the rights of lesbians. Other lesbians have faced similar persecution.
My friends Kate Harris, Bev Jackson and Eileen Gallagher had to fight a lengthy court battle to protect their charity, LGB Alliance, from being removed from the charity register as a result of malicious legal action. Justice prevailed and they won the case but, shamefully, those who sought to destroy a charity run by lesbians for lesbians included Members of this House, and it was not the first time that Members of this House have displayed hostility towards lesbians.
As the Father of the House said a moment ago, when I was invited to speak on a cross-party panel at the first LGB Alliance conference back in October 2021, I faced the challenge of crossing a picket line that included a heterosexual female MP who, together with self-styled trans rights activists, was protesting against the rights of lesbians to organise a conference to talk about lesbian and gay rights. Just let that sink in. That is where we have got to—heterosexuals telling lesbians that we cannot hold a conference.
Many lesbians have been persecuted for refusing to bend their knee to gender identity ideology. Some have faced losing their job and their livelihood, and some have also faced violence or the threat of violence. I will name a few of them this afternoon. All are or have become my friends as a result of our struggle: Lucy Masoud, Professor Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, Professor Jo Phoenix and my dear friend Dr Shereen Benjamin, a Labour activist who has been treated appallingly by the University of Edinburgh.
There are many other lesbians whose lives have been severely restricted by gender identity zealots. We are not allowed to have lesbian-only social events. The only venues left for lesbians say that they are inclusive, which means that men are included. Women’s sports are also now inclusive, which means that they include men while excluding lesbians who want to play on women-only teams.
Recently, a lesbian coming to view democracy in action at the Scottish Parliament was told by security that she could not enter the building wearing a small pin badge reading “Scottish Lesbians.” I am wearing that same badge today in solidarity with Scottish Lesbians, which is an excellent grassroots lesbian collective.
Across the United Kingdom, lesbians have been intimidated at Pride marches, spat on and assaulted for simply asserting their right to say that lesbians are same-sex attracted. At a recent event for women in Edinburgh, men counter-protesters held up vile, abusive lesbophobic signs. The police did nothing because, for all the furore in Scotland about hate crime, it seems that hate directed at lesbians does not count.
I do not believe that the interests of lesbians are being properly represented by organisations such as Stonewall and the organisers of Lesbian Visibility Week because, in their determination to promote gender identity ideology and to keep themselves in a job by doing so, not only do they fail to represent lesbians but they actually promote lesbian invisibility and lesbian erasure.
Most people think it is absurd to say that a man can be a lesbian, or to say that lesbians can have penises, and they are right. It is absurd. I am proud to be able to stand up in Lesbian Visibility Week in the House of Commons and say so. I am proud that I can stand up to speak for the lesbians who reject the forced teaming of lesbians with other groups that have completely different issues from us. I say: stop lumping us together with those other groups, as it has the effect that our interests are obscured or overlooked altogether, and it renders us invisible.
Interestingly, back in 2021 the “Inclusive Britain” report found that aggregate terms such as BAME were “no longer helpful”, took no account of the differing needs and outcomes of those included under that umbrella, and should be dropped. The report’s findings were adopted and the acronym BAME is no longer used in government. I, like many other lesbians, think that the same principles should be applied to acronyms such as LGBTQIA+, so that lesbians are not force-teamed with other identities.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am reflecting on the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and what we could all benefit from in this debate is a bit more love and compassion. Anybody who is setting out to do anything other than demonstrate love to people who do or think differently perhaps needs to think again.
Joanna Cherry
Yes, but there also has to be room for difference and for someone such as me to speak up on behalf of some lesbians who feel the way that I do—we are quite large in number. I do not pretend to speak for all lesbians, but none of the other lesbians in this House speak for all lesbians either. I am putting forward what I consider to be a valid viewpoint. Most importantly, it is one backed by the law of this land.
I am constrained by not having as much time as I would have liked. I would have liked to have talked about the Cass report and how it has identified that a large percentage of girls presenting with gender dysphoria are same-sex attracted young women. I would like to have had time to talk about how important it is that we do not shut down holistic talking therapy for such young women. However, I am going to bring my comments to a close by saying this: in my belief, in the view of many lesbians and in the eyes of the law, a lesbian is a woman whose sexual orientation is towards other women. Those who think lesbians include men are deluded. You cannot be a responsible lawmaker if you believe that any man can be a woman just by saying so. That is an old joke worthy of the worst nights in student union bars back in my youth, with drunk testosterone-fuelled men telling me and other lesbians that all we needed was the right man. In future, let us try to retain our grasp on what a lesbian is. Many lesbians are sick of being bossed about by all those who promote their cult beliefs that gender trumps sex—it does not; it never has and it never will.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate, the first on Lesbian Visibility Week in parliamentary time. I congratulate her on her inclusion in the DIVA 2024 power list. Her sharing of her coming out story today was generous and powerful. She also reminded us of all the trailblazers and giants upon whose shoulders we stand. She also talked about the homophobic abuse she faces on a daily basis, and I applaud her for her courage and insistence that she will not be silenced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) talked about the importance of everyone being able to be their authentic selves. I was also struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said about how, as lesbians, we have often been more hidden than she thought, because for so long lesbians were not noticed, not considered and marginalised; we were not seen even when we were not hiding.
As has been said, Lesbian Visibility Week was founded in 2020 by Linda Riley, the publisher of DIVA magazine. It is a global event that aims to celebrate LGBT+ women and non-binary people everywhere, and to increase lesbian visibility. Today is an opportunity for us to reflect upon the history of lesbian Members of this place, to celebrate the progress that has been made to make Britain a better place in which to live as a lesbian, and to recognise the issues that our community still faces and the progress that is still to be made.
When I was young, lesbian role models were few and far between; being openly gay was just not something that was present in the public psyche, and I could not then imagine a lesbian being able to exist, never mind be happy. Lesbian Visibility Week is an opportunity for us to celebrate not only that we exist, but that we are a diverse community. We do not all look like each other, behave like each other and agree with each other, but more often than not we can be united, although we are not uniform; fundamentally, you cannot tell by looking.
Today’s debate is a chance to usualise us, and to show that lesbians are everywhere and not in niche, discrete communities. We are in workplaces, communities, schools, churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and families, and, yes, we are in Parliament too. How many times are lesbians expected to ‘”blend in”, keep our heads down and not make a point of our sexuality and whom we love? Without being visible, our identity is hidden, and when we are so hidden, it confirms assumptions that we are somehow shameful. That is why Lesbian Visibility Week is so important. We must be included for who we are, not for fitting in. Once no one looks twice at two women holding hands in public, once no one raises an eyebrow when your wife picks you up from work, when a child’s teachers are not surprised when two mothers arrive for parents’ evening and when people are not looking at the clothes we wear or the length of our hair to decide whether or not we are lesbians, that is when lesbians are becoming equitable. It is not so much about being accepted as being expected. I want my being a lesbian to be un-noteworthy, not because no one has noticed, but because it is usual.
Since today’s debate is the first in this place to celebrate Lesbian Visibility Week, it seems only right to recognise the first out lesbian Member of this place; Maureen Colquhoun, who died in 2021, was one of merely 23 women elected in the February 1974 election. Not only was she the first woman to come out as a lesbian while an MP, but she was the first MP to come out at all. I never met Maureen, but she was a trailblazer and she never hid who she was, even in the face of some of the worst discrimination, including from within my party. A feminist and a fierce campaigner for women’s rights, Maureen openly stated that her sexuality ruined her political career. Deselected by her local Labour Party in Northampton North, Maureen was reinstated by the national executive of the Labour party just before the 1979 election, but ultimately she lost her seat as the country went to the polls. Maureen rightly takes her place in Labour party history and parliamentary history, and I am proud that we are able to celebrate her as part of this debate today.
However, after Maureen’s election in 1974, Parliament would have to wait a staggering 23 years until my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), whom I am delighted to see has just entered the Chamber, became the second out lesbian on the green Benches, coming out in 1997. Thanks to those women trailblazers and those who have come since, it has been possible for me to believe I could be here too.
Living as a lesbian in 2024 is vastly different from living as a lesbian in 1974, and I am pleased to say that since then my party and this place have made significant progress on lesbian and LGBT+ rights. I am glad that progress has been made in recent years. I welcome the Government’s expansion of the scope of the Turing law to include lesbians who were wrongly convicted of homosexuality while serving in the military. As a Christian, I am delighted that same-sex couples are finally able to receive blessings from the Church of England.
Looking around the world, we see progress in other countries too. 2024 is the year that Greece, Estonia and Latvia are legalising same-sex marriage, and in Dominica homosexual activity has been decriminalised and the age of consent equalised. But there are challenges too. In Russia, displaying the Pride flag has become a criminal offence, and in Uganda, simply identifying as LGBT+ is illegal, showing just how far there is still to go for LGBT+ people, including lesbians, to feel safe to be who they are.
There are still many disparities and discriminations here at home. The Government cannot seem to decide whether or not to bring forward a Bill to ban conversion therapy. Two weeks ago, it was reported that the Prime Minister was killing it off, but a week later it was said that the Minister for Women and Equalities was still working on it. The position changes depending on whoever was last asked. The fact remains that the Government are still kicking a Bill on conversion therapy into the long grass, with no expectation that it will make it on to the statute book during this Parliament, despite its being promised six years and four Tory Prime Ministers ago.
Inequality has soared under the Conservatives. Fourteen years of low growth and their reckless gamble, which cost households thousands, has affected everyone, but women, including lesbians, have been brutally exposed to the cost of living crisis, thanks to a complete failure to close the gender pay gap and a failure to create a working environment that works for women with caring responsibilities. Lesbians and GBT+ people have been let down by a Conservative Government that killed off their own LGBT action plan, disbanded their LGBT advisory panel, cancelled their international LGBT conference and have still not honoured their promise to ban the insidious practice of conversion therapy. Instead of standing up for LGBT+ rights and bringing people together, the Conservatives have stoked a culture war and pitted different groups against each other.
When Labour left office in 2010, life in Britain for LGBT+ people, including lesbians, had been completely transformed. The last Labour Government repealed the appalling section 28, introduced civil partnerships, paving the way for equal marriage, and ended the ban on LGBT+ people serving in our armed forces. Labour equalised the age of consent, gave LGBT+ couples the right to adopt, introduced the Equality Act 2010 and made homophobia a hate crime. I am proud to take my place here today as a Labour Member and a lesbian, with the record of the last Labour Government behind me and standing on the shoulders of the brave women and men who made this country a safer and more hospitable place for lesbians and all LGBT+ people to grow up, work, love and thrive in. The next Labour Government will continue to build on that work.
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) pointed out that she is not a lesbian; obviously, I am not either. I feel somewhat outnumbered but I am proud to respond to this important debate. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing such an important debate, for highlighting the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week and for paying tribute to Linda Riley, who instigated it in the first place. I too pay tribute to Linda Riley for her work, over many years. Inspirational people like her have made my life, as a gay man, a lot easier, and I pay tribute to them for standing up at times when it was really not easy.
I am extremely proud to be one of over 60 openly LGBT members of Parliament, and I am grateful to serve alongside such a diverse range of colleagues across the House. Although I am obviously not a lesbian, the journey of LGBT rights is mirrored in my lifetime. As I have got older, our rights have improved significantly. Walking that journey means a great deal to me personally. I want that journey to continue for future generations. It is important that we have this debate on Lesbian Visibility Week so that the next generation can see that if they are a lesbian, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and they should enjoy their life happily and freely.
Lesbian Visibility Week has been widely celebrated since its inception and has provided an essential platform to address both the achievements and issues faced by lesbians. Dedicated colleagues have fought for gender and racial equality within the Houses of Parliament themselves, from Maureen Colquhoun in the 1970s, who was the first lesbian MP and who other hon. Members have mentioned, to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who has been a steadfast campaigner in this place for LGBT rights for many years—I do not want to sound rude.
Stuart Andrew
There are also inspirational figures outside Parliament, such as Dame Kelly Holmes, mentioned by the hon. Members for Jarrow and for Brent Central, who is raising the profile of those who find their true selves later in life. I was particularly touched by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). I know that at times it can be incredibly emotional for her to tell her story, but I am honoured every time I am in the room to hear someone being so open about their experiences. It is inspirational. The UK is undeniably richer for the contributions of these women, and more LGBT role models continue to appear every day. As others have righted raised, lesbians have contributed importantly to the way of life in this country: in our armed forces, serving to keep our country safe; in medicine, helping us to make medical advances; in education; and in all walks of life. Their contributions have been extraordinary.
Many Members will have heard me say on numerous occasions that I am committed to improving the outcomes for lesbians, and all LGBT people. We especially recognise that lesbians often face specific challenges. The hon. Member for Jarrow talked about how she often felt lonely. As Minister for loneliness, I was really keen that we had a specific campaign and focus this year on loneliness experienced by members of the LGBT community, as they often find that journey incredibly challenging, particularly if they are in rural areas.
Other challenges may include difficulty in access to IVF, mental health challenges, domestic abuse or hate crime. I was distressed to hear the experiences of hon. Members who have faced hate crime. Having been queer- bashed myself, I know how terrifying it is and the lasting effect such an incident has, not just when it happens but years later, with flashbacks. I reassure all Members of the House that I and the other equality hub Ministers regularly engage with our counterparts across Government, as well as relevant civil society groups, on a range of matters that relate to this important area of work.
The equality hub is working with a range of businesses and professional membership bodies to identify how employers can best support women’s reproductive health in the workplace, for example, as part of the delivery of the workplace elements in the women’s health strategy. We are holding roundtables and working with employers from a range of sectors to develop case studies and tips on good practice, to improve the support available for women’s reproductive health. This will help inform the development of resources to promote and support employer good practice, highlighting those organisations that are leading the way on these issues.
A number of important points were made about IVF. There were a number of changes and future ambitions within the women’s health strategy for England to improve the variation in access to NHS-funded fertility services.
Colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have begun work to improve information provision on fertility and fertility treatments, including on the NHS website, and have launched a tool that provides greater transparency on local provision of IVF. Our initial priority is to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access NHS-funded treatments. My colleagues in DHSC are working with NHS England to take that forward, along with other commitments that are deliverable through the integrated care boards.
I accept that this work is taking longer than expected, which I realise is disappointing to those affected, but please be assured that it remains a priority for delivery. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatments are still appropriate, and we expect that review to be published next year.
With regard to the statutory instrument, I am assured that colleagues in the DHSC are working on it, so that it can be presented to the House, but I will update the hon. Member for Jarrow when I have had further discussions with DHSC Ministers.
Let me come on to some of the other points that were raised by Members today. Mention was made of the equal marriage debates that we had in this Chamber. Ahead of that debate, I remember Members receiving emails and letters from people almost suggesting that if we extended marriage to lesbian and gay couples, the sky would fall in the next day. Well, we did it, and the sky is still up there. What I noticed though was that, very quickly, everybody was waiting for their invitation to an equal marriage reception.
Turning now to the issue of hate crime, we need to ensure that we all call hate crime out, and I am glad that hon. Members have done so. I am in regular discussions with my colleagues in the Home Office and will continue to raise the points that hon. Members have mentioned today.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) talked about the voices of lesbians being silenced. I simply cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. Lesbians have as much right as anyone to stand up for recognition and for their rights. It is important that we all enter this challenging debate in a calm and measured way. A toxic debate serves no one. We can have a grown-up debate in which we disagree and agree, but we should do so with dignity and with respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said, this should all be about the people whom we love, so let love be at the centre of that debate.
I was glad that colleagues raised international issues. Unacceptable things are happening around the world—in places such as Uganda and Ghana. I pay tribute to the work that the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights is doing to focus attention on this area. It is right that we join our LGBT alliance friends around the world to encourage progress in this area so that people do not have to live in fear.
I will address the issue of conversion practices that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) mentioned. No one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are, and attempts at so-called conversion practices are abhorrent. We are clear on our stance that they are harmful and that they simply do not work. That is why we are committed to publishing the draft Bill. I know that it has taken time, but it has been a very challenging issue to get right. I am committed to our doing it.
I gently say that I was slightly disappointed by the shadow Minister’s conclusions to her speech, trying to make out that this Government have not worked hard on LGBT issues. I am proud to serve in a Government who introduced equal marriage, proud to serve in a Government who have brought about an HIV action plan to eradicate new infections by 2030, proud to serve in a Government who allow gay men to donate blood, and proud to serve in a Government who instigated the LGBT veterans independent review, so that there can be more support for those who were treated so disgracefully.
Today, though, I will end on a positive note by again thanking the hon. Member for Jarrow for securing this debate today and bringing awareness to the extremely important topic of our lesbian citizens during this important Lesbian Visibility Week. As outlined, the Government are committed to making sure that the UK is a safe place where lesbians are given the opportunities to thrive and live a safe and happy life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Kate Osborne to wind up.
Kate Osborne
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who is no longer in her place, for all that she did to ensure that same-sex marriage was achieved. My huge thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for her continuous support and allyship, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)— I hope that I have pronounced her constituency correctly—for her activism and her very moving contribution today.
It was disappointing to hear the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), using problematic language such as “deluded” and “forced teaming” in a debate designed to celebrate all lesbians. To bring so much hate and toxicity as the formal Front-Bench speaker is upsetting and this Parliament deserves better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) must really not use such language. I think she should withdraw that comment.
Kate Osborne
I am not sure which bit you would like me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Kate Osborne
Okay, I withdraw it. But it is astonishing to claim that Lesbian Visibility Week is marginalising lesbians. It is because of Lesbian Visibility Week that we are here in this Chamber, bringing to Parliament the issues that lesbians face. The reality is that trans-inclusive lesbians like me are very much in the majority of cis lesbians, so I take offence at any insinuation that I am marginalising or misrepresenting lesbians. As a cis lesbian, I will not shy away from my trans-inclusive lesbianism and feminism. This year’s theme is “unified, not uniform”. To embrace that, we should all be celebrating the wonderful diversity among the spectrum of LGBTQIA+ women.
I thank the Minister for his constructive contribution and his support for the LGBTQIA community and I look forward to receiving his response regarding IVF. I also thank Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson for setting out that Labour will treat all LGBTQIA+ people fairly and with dignity and respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.
Buckland Review of Autism Employment
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the recommendations of the Buckland Review into Autism and Employment; and urges the Government, businesses and the wider economy to implement them.
There, in the words of the motion, lies the force of the review that I had the honour of chairing and the report that was published at the end of February. This was never going to be a bout of navel gazing—an inward-looking report that purely viewed the challenge that faces autistic people in getting a full or part-time job as a problem, a risk or a challenge—but instead a massive opportunity not just for all of us who are involved and who have spent years campaigning for or caring about autistic people and the wider neurodiverse family, but the wider economy, businesses small, medium and large, and self-employment. The question of productivity in our economy has been at the heart of the economic debate for more years than I care to remember. There is the issue of economic inactivity. We need to move away from the rather tired and clichéd argument that views this through the prism of benefits, rather than the range of talents that autistic people have, the myriad conditions that are involved, and the potential that autistic people want to realise in a happy and healthy workplace.
I put on record my thanks to Stephen Lismore and the team of civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions, some of whom are here today, for their tireless work and support in marshalling the wealth of evidence that we received—both written evidence, and evidence from a number of roundtables that we held during our call for evidence, in person and online, which allowed people from right across the four nations of the UK to take part. The list of organisations, businesses and people who helped to make the review such a rich and stimulating process runs to seven pages at the back of the document. That tells the House how deep we wanted to go, and how meaningful we wanted to make the process.
The review was robustly independent, and we pulled no punches on the limitations of Government programmes, but the DWP deserves my thanks for its dedication and support. I am also thankful for the support of the UK’s leading research charity on autism, Autistica, and of James Cusack and the team there, remembering that the leadership of that organisation are themselves autistic people. That was important for me on many levels. The review had to be led by autistic people, and about autistic people—in other words, “Nothing about us without us.” I speak not only as a parliamentarian and a former Minister, but as a parent of a young woman who will, in due course, face choices, and hopefully be able to have a job of her own.
Some people will say, “Well, he’s only in it because he cares about his daughter.” I am in it because I care about the hundreds of thousands of people like her who deserve their chance. They might not be at the top of the tree in terms of their abilities. They might not be able to get jobs in MI6 and the security services, which by the way are really coming to rely on the gifts that autistic people have. It is about jobs right across the spectrum, down to part-time jobs that will mean so much to the people who can do them, and will give their life purpose, fulfilment and happiness. We must not lose the concept of happiness in all this. There is a moral case to be made for the recommendations in the review, but there is also—I make no apology for this—a hard-edged economic case. What is good for autistic people will be good for the rest of our society.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his excellent speech and his brilliant report. Does he agree that hospitality is an excellent sector for people with learning difficulties, autism and so on to consider, and will he join me on a visit to the Fair Shot café? I extend the invitation to everyone in the Chamber. It is a social enterprise run by a brilliant young woman, Bianca Tavella, who set up the organisation to train young people with learning difficulties to become baristas and café workers, and has secured jobs for dozens of people. Will he join me one day in Covent Garden to visit the Fair Shot café?
Sir Robert Buckland
If there is tea and cake involved, I am there. I will happily do that. The point that my hon. Friend makes deals straight away with the stereotype that autistic people cannot socialise. That is nonsense. There are myriad types of presentation. The condition will sometimes present itself in that way, but not always. Plenty of autistic people can and do work in the hospitality sector, in an outward-facing, communications-based job that works really well for them.
Exploding some of those myths is important not just in this House but from an employer’s point of view. That is really at the heart of the report: turning risk into opportunity for employers, to get them to think differently. The terms of reference referred to autism, but I reassure people who initially wanted a wider reference to neuro- diversity that that was not forgotten at all. In fact, a lot of the recommendations have direct read-across to a wide range of neurodiverse conditions, from attention deficit disorder to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and dyspraxia—the whole family of neurodiverse conditions. There is clearly commonality in the challenges that people face with recruitment and retention.
In the time that I have, which I have to use economically, let us start with some of the facts that we uncovered. Only just under three in 10 autistic adults are in full-time or part-time work. It is the lowest rate across all disability classes, at about 30%, as opposed to 50% for those with a disability generally. In late 2012, I led a Backbench Business Committee debate on autism in this Chamber. I think it was the first debate on autism that we had ever had in the main Chamber. Then, fewer than one in seven, maybe about 14% of autistic adults, had full-time employment. There would seem to have been an improvement, but we are not comparing like with like. In the years since, we have seen people in the workforce start to reveal their autism in a way that they would not have before, which is encouraging, but let us not forget that we are still talking about the 700,000 or so who have a diagnosis. A large number of people—probably hundreds of thousands or even more—perhaps do not have a diagnosis, and do not even think of themselves as autistic or neurodiverse in any way. The figures therefore start to get a little unclear.
Progress has been very, very slow. There is no doubt that, as a result of Government action and intervention, there has been improvement, but we are still nowhere near where we need to be. The question is how we start to move the dial. More on that shortly. Autistic people have the largest pay gap of all disability groups. They receive a third less on average than non-disabled people. I am afraid that that is the experience of autistic graduates, too, who experience the worst outcomes of all disability groups. They are the most likely to be overqualified for their job. They are the most likely to be on zero-hours contracts or part time. That leads to under motivation, less pay, unhappiness and a lack of fulfilment. Some 50% of managers expressed discomfort with the idea of having autistic people in their workforce, and only 35% of autistic employees were fully open about being autistic.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent case. I recently attended a Worcestershire local enterprise partnership presentation, at which an employer talked about finding that his expectations of employing autistic people were completely wrong. When he discovered that one of his employees was autistic, his whole organisation learned and benefited as a result. It strengthened the organisation and increased its productivity. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many more employers need to engage on this subject?
Sir Robert Buckland
Stories like that can open up a whole new way of thinking to employers. That is really the beginning of the recommendations that we make in the report. The power of narrative, and linking that to creating a wave of change, lies at the heart of the recommendations. Let me make a final point about the current situation: about two thirds—61%—of disabled people said that their Access to Work claim took over three months, and 20% said that it took over six months. While Access to Work is a great principle, that is clearly too slow to help change the life of people who face an immediate job offer, or have an interview within days, rather than weeks or months.
What is to be done? I have talked about turning risk into opportunity, but a “universal by design” approach will make the most difference. We have heard a lot over the years about autism-friendly environments, and going out of our way to reach out, understand, and allow people to explain, but that will have only a limited impact, and only on those people who are comfortable talking, and prepared to talk, about their autism. Surely it would be better to have a universal change to the way in which we recruit and retain employees, so that it embraces not just those with a diagnosis, but those who do not want to disclose their diagnosis or do not have one. Suddenly, the number would then be not 700,000, but probably well over a million—and that might be a conservative estimate.
What about the recommendations? There are several groups within our 19 recommendations, but they can be summarised in the following way. The first group of three recommendations relates to initiatives to raise awareness, reduce stigma and capitalise on productivity. We are already working with people, autism organisations and employer-facing organisations to start that national campaign with good news stories like the one that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
In certain jobs, autistic staff can be way more productive than neurotypical staff; statistics show productivity improvements ranging from 45% to 145%. I am grateful to Autistica for its work promoting its new neurodiversity employers index, which will allow employers to measure themselves against best practice; it has an annual awards programme. That is the sort of approach that we have seen really make a difference in other walks of life. The index, with the support and approval of my hon. Friend the Minister, would give employers a degree of certainty, and a uniform framework within which we could see the dial start to move. By developing such small pilots and good practices, we are again using a “show and tell” method, and larger national and multinational organisations and representative bodies can then start to spread this work out.
The second bucket of recommendations, 4 to 8, relates to the support needed for autistic people to begin or return to a career. That is all about making sure that new programmes, such as the universal support programme, are designed in a way that meets the varying needs of autistic people, so that there are supported employment programmes available, as well as supported internships, which the evidence shows are a wonderful route through which autistic young people can develop the skills that they need. I am glad that the Department for Education is piloting an entry route into supported internships for disabled people without an education, health and care plan; that again embraces the “universal by design” approach.
Mr Walker
As Chairman of the Education Committee, I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on the value of supported internships. Does he agree that more broadly we need to look at the issue of people without an EHCP? We know that many autistic people do not require or have not had one. We should be looking to make supported internships, or extra support for apprenticeships, as accessible as possible, so that people can progress into work and training.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right about that. He might have noted the very interesting findings of the Nuffield Trust a few weeks ago, which makes the point that although we have to have a system of diagnosis, the EHCP system, which I was proud to support as a Back Bencher when we brought in the Children and Families Act 2014, is a very narrow funnel. It takes a long time to get children and people in. Instead of concentrating on the funnel, we need a more universal approach that can embrace many people who will not need an EHCP, but who have particular needs. That is why promoting cross-industry autism support groups and opportunities for work shadowing and volunteering has to be part of the solution. As recommendation 7 says, apprenticeships are key.
Finally, recommendation 8 is that the Government work with autism charities and other groups to ensure that more people know about Access to Work and improvements to the speed of that programme. If the adjustment passport and the Access to Work Plus pilots being run by Department for Work and Pensions produce positive results, then I say to the Minister: let us roll them out nationally as soon as possible.
The next group of recommendations, 9 to 13, are all about changing recruitment practices to support autistic applicants appropriately. We need to start with careers advisers in schools and colleges and the National Careers Service in England and its equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that there is a better understanding of autism, autistic customers can be better supported, and more properly tailored advice can be given. We also need to increase the rigour of the Disability Confident work and develop higher levels; we need more assessments under Disability Confident and we need to build in a link to the new neurodiversity employers index, so that Disability Confident organisations themselves will be, in the eyes of autistic jobseekers, much better placed to help them. Online support with the employee health and disability service can also link employees to appropriate advice on best practice when it comes to recruitment.
The representative bodies have a role here. The Recruitment & Employment Confederation has a key role to play, because it can advise not only individual businesses, but recruitment consulting agencies. There are myriad agencies up and down our high streets that do the heavy lifting of recruitment for small and medium-sized enterprises, so we have to get into those agencies. It will be good for them, as it means they will have more success in placing autistic employees, and it will of course be good for wider business. Let us face it, these SMEs do not have big human resources departments and they will not be able to do that themselves. That is why getting into the agencies will be important. We must also not forget the self-employed, and ensure that we identify sources of information and support for people who want to get on with things on their own and set up their own business.
In the few minutes I have left, I will mention two more groups of recommendations—I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to finish covering this important report. Supporting autistic people already in the workforce is covered in recommendations 14 to 17; working with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to make sure that the 2018 “Neurodiversity at Work” guidance is published and accessible is at the heart of that. Finally, on career progression, we need to promote the value of employee resource groups and support networks within larger organisations and work with autism charities and the representative bodies to develop the training packages to allow autistic staff to progress.
A new task group will be set up in the weeks ahead— I say weeks, because I am working with colleagues in the DWP to identify an independent chair and suitably qualified members. We need to monitor progress, hold Government to account and audit the progress we are making. I want to see, certainly by the end of this decade, that number of one in three up to the disability average at least, and—who knows?—beyond that.
Let us be ambitious here. I call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to respond positively to the report and its recommendations with all the power that she can muster on behalf of herself and her Government colleagues. They are not the end; they are not even the beginning of the end; but they are the end of the beginning. Let us make progress.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); I congratulate him on securing this debate and on the report, which makes a very valuable contribution on this extremely important topic. The report does a good job of laying bare the obstacles facing autistic people in the workplace—obstacles that, as he rightly says, we need to overcome. I applaud the obvious passion that he has shown in presenting the report to us. I did not know about his own family link, and I am grateful to him for explaining that to us.
The Work and Pensions Committee has recently launched our own inquiry into disability employment, to follow up the report that we published in 2021 on the disability employment gap. We have just closed our call for evidence for that inquiry—I am glad that we have received evidence from Autistica, among others—and we will soon start to take oral evidence from disability charities and others. The review will help us to frame particular questions on autism employment in the context of that inquiry. As the review points out, the employment gap is much worse for autistic people than for disabled people more broadly.
A disappointing feature of the report for me, though, is the rather unambitious nature of the recommendations, which are along the lines of, “The Government ought to try a bit harder on this, and do a bit more of that.” There are no targets set out in the report, and nothing to help us to monitor progress. I fear that when, in two or five years’ time, we ask whether the recommendations have been delivered, the answer will be a bit unclear. I do not blame the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon for that—no doubt Ministers would not have gone along with a higher level of ambition—but I fear that the Government will be able to accept all the recommendations without really changing anything. It does seem to be a bit of a missed opportunity.
The report rightly highlights the huge size of the autism employment gap. By how much should we aim to reduce it? In his speech a moment ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the aim should be to increase the rate of employment among people with autism at least up to the overall disability employment rate. That would have been a really substantial target against which to measure progress to include in the report, but it is not in there. My fear is that a lack of ambition has regrettably marked the Government’s efforts on disability employment for some time.
There was a moment not long ago when a higher level of ambition was announced. Government Members may well remember that they campaigned in the 2015 general election on a target announced by David Cameron to halve the wider disability employment gap. That gap fell sharply from 1998 to 2010 through the new deal for disabled people, but it has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since; it went down for a bit after 2015, but perhaps unsurprisingly during the pandemic it went back up. Unfortunately, the target of halving the gap was abandoned shortly after the 2015 election was safely won, which strikes me as the kind of move that gives politicians a bad name.
In our 2021 report, the Work and Pensions Committee called unanimously, on a cross-party basis, for that target to be reinstated. The report we are debating this afternoon refers in paragraph 2.7 to making progress on closing the employment gap, and I call on the Government, in responding to that report, to set an ambitious target for increasing the employment rate among people with autism—perhaps, as the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon has just suggested, up to at least the overall disability employment rate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman spells out with passion in his foreword, at the moment, we are
“missing out on the skills and energy that autistic people could be contributing, to the detriment of us all.”
He is absolutely right about that. The danger, I fear, is that without targets against which to measure progress, the report may not really change things.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for engaging so closely. I absolutely agree that without a means of accountability, the work that we have done may well be lost. I think that the task group will play an important role; it will have the freedom to start developing some more hard-and-fast approaches where necessary, and to hold the Government’s feet to the fire—whatever that Government’s complexion. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps he could use his influence with the task group—I do not know whether he is a member of it; I am not sure how that will work out, but I am sure he will have influence with it—to urge it to adopt the target that he set out a few minutes ago, which I think could make a substantial difference.
I welcome the call in the report for
“processes and support mechanisms that enable autistic staff to be recruited and to succeed.”
In that context, I want to draw attention to a concept that is not mentioned in the report—I am a bit disappointed that it was not—but which has been referred to elsewhere, not least in our Select Committee report.
The concept of job carving means assessing a person’s skills and then tailoring an employee role to those skills. Catherine Hale, director of the Chronic Illness Inclusion project, told our 2021 inquiry that job carving was particularly effective in supporting people with learning disabilities; given the big overlap between autism and learning disability, I think that job carving could certainly help. The charity Mind says that job carving roles for people with learning disabilities can benefit employers by removing tasks from other employees and freeing up time. In its “Working Better” report, the Equality and Human Rights Commission described job carving as a
“a flexible way of managing a workforce, which allows employers to utilise their staff skills in the most productive way whilst enabling disabled people to make a valuable contribution to the world of work.”
Our 2021 report called on the Government as part of their then forthcoming national disability strategy to provide detailed guidance to employers and providers of employment support on how they could job carve roles for disabled people, and called on Jobcentre Plus to encourage local employers in their area to job carve. The Government’s response to our report did not pick up the concept of job carving, but Ministers could still pick it up in responding to the report we are debating this afternoon. I wonder whether the Minister, who I know takes a very close interest in this area, recognises that job carving could make a significant difference to the employment prospects of many autistic people.
One thing the Government response to our 2021 inquiry did refer to was the plan at that time to increase the number of places on the intensive personalised employment support scheme. IPES provides voluntary employment support to people with disabilities and complex barriers to employment. As we noted in our report, the guidance to IPES providers explicitly mentions job carving as an intervention that can help disabled people to find and stay in work. IPES is referred to in paragraph 2.11 of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s report, which rightly points out that referrals to IPES have now ended, as our Select Committee heard in a one-off evidence session last week on the Government’s back to work plan. There will be no more IPES referrals.
We were told by providers at our evidence session last week that the work and health programme, also referred to in paragraph 2.11 of the report, is also coming to an end. Those are two programmes that the report rightly identifies as providing valuable help for people with autism to move into employment which are being shut down. The Minister may want to comment on this in due course, but, as far as I can tell, it does not appear that any of the newer employment support programmes, such as WorkWell and universal support, will provide support comparable to that which is being closed down, and which the report has rightly identified as very helpful. The fear is that, despite the laudable aims set out in the report, which I know the Minister will endorse, we are in reality going backwards. The provision at the moment, which has been there for some time, is being removed. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us why IPES and the work and health programme are being closed down, and where the new initiatives are to close what looks like an emerging gap in provision for people with autism.
Employers are struggling at the moment to fill vacancies. The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon is absolutely right that there is a big opportunity here to boost disability employment if we can just find a way to enable employers to tap into it. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) is absolutely right that employers are willing to do so, if only they knew how—it is a bit of a closed book to them. I do not think there is a lack of willingness on the part of employers, but there is a lack of information.
It was very interesting to read in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s review about Auticon, which I had not heard of before. It is an IT consultancy in which 80% of the workforce are autistic, highly talented IT consultants. The founders—I think they were in Scandinavia —recognised that many autistic adults have extraordinary abilities, such as pattern recognition, sustained concentration and attention to detail, which are valuable qualities in many employment contexts. However, autistic people need support to secure and maintain those jobs, and Auticon specifically provides that support, understanding the needs of its employees, and has built a successful business on that basis.
Mr Robin Walker
I am glad that the report also highlights in that respect the good work of GCHQ, which is a big employer in my neck of the woods. Another example along those lines is an IT security company in Worcester called Titania. Its chief executive is an autistic woman, and it has tailored its recruitment process specifically to address some of the challenges that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has identified in his report, so that it can recruit more autistic people, who it finds are such valuable and productive employees.
Sir Stephen Timms
That sounds like a wonderful model. The more of that kind of initiative around the country, the better.
The report makes the point that a line manager in a mainstream business may well not know that somebody they are managing is autistic. Whether the employer can agree reasonable adjustments for the employee, as is their right under the Equality Act, will depend on them self-disclosing their diagnosis to their line manager. As the review notes, whatever the level of understanding among company directors or senior staff, if the line manager is unable or unwilling to provide support, the employee will struggle to stay in their job.
The review is right to point out that at the moment there is no easily accessible guidance for employers and line managers on how to support autistic staff. Evidence to our inquiry so far suggests that, as the hon. Member for Worcester rightly said, employers want to do the right thing but often simply do not know how. When they are pointed in the right direction and try it, it turns out to be a positive experience. What can the Government do to give employers confidence in this area?
The review calls on the Department to
“Continue to develop Disability Confident, increasing the rigour of developmental work needed to achieve the higher Disability Confident levels”.
I think that is a very kind way of expressing the point. The noble Lord Shinkwin, who sits on the Government Benches in the other place and chaired the disability commission for the Centre for Social Justice, spoke for many of our witnesses when he said that Disability Confident
“is not making a measurable impact”
at the moment. Employers can, as things stand, achieve the highest level of Disability Confident accreditation without employing a single disabled person.
In response to our predecessor Select Committee six years ago, the Department said that it was developing proposals for an evaluation of Disability Confident. That commitment, first expressed six years ago, was announced again in response to our report almost three years ago in November 2021. However, I have still seen no sign of anything happening. Perhaps the Minister can update us. Is that evaluation of Disability Confident now complete, and when can we expect Disability Confident finally to be reformed?
The review is absolutely right to highlight the importance of Access to Work and to call for improvements there. It makes the point—I think the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon referred to this in his speech—that almost two thirds of disabled people stated that it took over three months for their application to be processed, and 20% said that it took over six months. He is absolutely right that that is far too slow. I agree that, as the review suggests, if the adjustment passport produces positive results, it should be rolled out nationally as soon as possible. However, in response to our Committee’s report three years ago in November 2021, we were promised that the adjustment passport would be piloted from November 2021 and, if successful, would be expanded to support all Access to Work customers. As far as I can tell, we seem to be no further forward in 2024 than we were in November 2021. When are these long-promised improvements actually going to materialise?
One other policy lever the Government could pull is mandatory disability workforce reporting, which was recommended unanimously, on a cross-party basis, in our 2021 report. There is a voluntary framework through which employers can choose to report, but in late 2021 the Government launched a consultation on whether to require large employers to report the number of disabled people they were employing. That work was then paused, but I understand that it has now been resumed, and that the Government plan to publish their findings and next steps in the course of this year. I wonder whether the Minister can update us on when we can expect to see that work. Does she agree that requiring employers to report on the number of disabled people they employ and, within that, perhaps the number of autistic people, could be effective in encouraging the employment of people with autism and other health impairments?
I very much welcome the report, which has highlighted important issues, and the opportunity to debate it today. I also welcome the positive approach that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took, when introducing the report earlier, in seeing the scale of opportunity if we get this right. However, laudable aspirations in this area are just not enough if delivery is delayed for years. We need an ambitious target to increase the rate of employment among people with autism and other disabled people. We need worked-up plans and timescales to deliver them. I very much hope that—perhaps as a result of the work of the task group that he mentioned—we will finally see some of that when the Government respond formally to this very welcome report.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Running through my mind are the words, “Follow that!” I thank the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for producing this outstanding report. His family’s lived experience has absolutely made for a much better report, and I thank him for all the work that he has done on it. To follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) is always a privilege and a pleasure—he has taken away some of my best lines, but I will carry on regardless.
It is a real pleasure to speak in the debate, which I signed up for immediately, having spoken many times in this place on the subject of autism. I think it would be remiss of me not to mention Dame Cheryl Gillan at the start of my remarks. One of the first debates that I spoke in was on the closure of the autism One Stop Shop in Motherwell back in 2015, and Dame Cheryl was so kind and helpful to me when I spoke to that important topic. I should point out that I am very close to someone with three autistic sons. My own youngest son has never been diagnosed, but I do not think there is much doubt that he is somewhere on the spectrum, and I think he would admit that himself. I also thank Ambitious about Autism and the National Autistic Society for their briefings, which are always helpful.
The current situation regarding employment for those with autism is simply not good enough across the UK. The UK Government have consistently banged on about reducing economic inactivity and encouraging people into work, but their rhetoric is still not matched with proper support, especially for the neurodiverse, about whom we are talking today.
As we have heard, issues with access to work and the provision of workplace adjustments mean that many autistic people are slipping through the gaps. This is certainly the case for those with autism: as we have also heard, only three in 10 working-age autistic people in the UK are in employment. That statistic is five in 10 for all disabled people, and eight in 10 for non-disabled people. Ambitious about Autism’s employment survey found that 71% of those unemployed would like to be in work, but less than a third were confident that they would find work within the next year. That signifies a huge gap in the support currently provided.
I have seen at first hand the transformative power of employment when autistic and disabled people are properly supported into work. I had the privilege of visiting University Hospital Wishaw to meet some of the participants in the supported internship scheme run by DFN Project SEARCH, and met some of the students on that scheme. Some of them have now found employment. Some of them have now married. The transformation in their lives and those of their families cannot be over- estimated—I literally had to be dragged off the scene, because that was one of the most uplifting visits I have undertaken as an MP.
Employment brings fulfilment, independence and purpose, and as I have said, it can positively transform the life of the employee if they are well supported. However, even when employed, autistic people face challenges and discrimination. The Buckland report finds that autistic workers face the largest pay gap of all disability groups, earning on average a third less than their non-neurodiverse counterparts. Further, the report notes that autistic graduates are twice as likely as non-disabled graduates to be unemployed after 15 months. Only 36% find work in that period, and autistic graduates are more likely to be overqualified for the job they have. They are the most likely people to be on zero-hour contracts and the least likely to be in a permanent role. All of those things require looking at properly, because the statistics are appalling.
Morally, we should be ensuring that autistic workers are supported when trying to find employment, but it is also incumbent upon Government, employers and other stakeholders to ensure that those with autism are adequately supported when they are in work. The SNP welcomes the publication of the Buckland review of autism and employment, and urges the Government to implement its recommendations to ensure that autistic people have the opportunities they deserve. I further welcome the report’s engagement with autistic organisations, as lived experience is vital when shaping policy. That is something the UK Government do not always have a good track record on.
A lack of access to good-quality careers advice, inflexible hiring practices and non-inclusive workplace cultures are just some of the barriers facing autistic people. Once employment has been achieved, autistic people can struggle when employers do not or cannot put in place proper adjustments to support them. Autistic people process information differently and experience a built environment in a totally different manner, which can impinge on their ability to carry out their work—too much bright light, noise, or social interaction can be overwhelming. Additionally, as has been said, autistic people might need more time to process interview questions. It is imperative that employers are aware of such differences and take steps to accommodate autistic workers—or any disabled workers, for that matter. A person close to me has an autistic son who wears a badge at work to indicate his mood to his co-workers. It is a simple thing: if he is feeling overwhelmed and does not want people to talk to him or to be interrupted, he turns the badge to indicate that.
From my own experience in further education, I know that my students benefited immensely when we had autistic students in class. At first they thought it was strange—they were a bit wary—but over the year they developed an understanding of autism and a real respect for the autistic students who sat next to them. The same happens in workplaces: if we can get people into the right place and the right job, everyone benefits. Not accommodating autistic workers wastes so much talent and skill. It makes no sense for businesses either—we have already heard about the special skills that autistic people can bring to the workplace. When businesses properly accommodate neurodiverse employees, the results can be amazing. I have visited the Barclays bank campus in Glasgow, designed by a woman architect who has autistic sons. The difference in that building is awesome: it is built with neurodiverse people in mind, with big open-plan offices with chill pods and a real understanding of what needs to happen. As a result, Barclays has great employees, and people are getting good work and proper jobs.
It is imperative that the UK Government act urgently to improve support for all disabled people, including those with autism, and tackle barriers to employment. We are really worried about the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on fit note reform: pushing people into work without considering what they are suffering and what they need is appalling. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I get very passionate about this topic, so I will try to rush through.
It is important that Access to Work is reformed, as the Buckland report calls for, and reforms to sick pay also need to be introduced for when people need time off. In Scotland, the SNP Government try our best. We are trying to be a fair work nation and are investing money in autism, as well as in simple things such as working within education to get initial teacher education courses that will teach trainee teachers about autism, because as we know, education is the gateway to employment. I will stop there, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon, and I want the Minister to take on board all the report’s recommendations and make life much easier for those with autism in the workplace.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am the next in line to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on securing and opening this debate, but also—and particularly—on the contents of his report. His persistence in pushing to raise awareness of the barriers autistic people face in employment is greatly to his credit, and benefits this House and our understanding of these issues. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and colleagues for making such valuable and insightful contributions. In passing, I also put on record my admiration for Autism Together, formerly the Wirral Society for Autistic Children—a great local charity that has been around for 50 years and does very good work in this area, which has not always been fashionable for people to concentrate on.
As we have heard this afternoon, the Buckland review has been broadly welcomed by charities and other organisations. It has shone a light on the barriers that neurodivergent people continue to face when trying to get into, stay in, and get on in the workplace. It has also demonstrated that there is an increasing understanding of the benefits of ensuring that people with neurodivergence can get into work: they often have a unique view and unique talents. Not only does GCHQ know about those talents, but many other sectors could benefit if they only realised it.
The review is filled with statistics that make for grim reading, to say the least. Only 30% of autistic adults are currently in work—what a waste! Where they are in work, autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups—that is simply not a fair reflection of the benefit they bring to employment. Autistic graduates are the most likely to be overqualified for their position and least likely to be in a permanent role. Our society and our economy suffer as a result of the waste that the Buckland review has outlined to the House. We ought to be anxious to do something about that.
The review highlights that a startling 50% of managers feel uncomfortable with the idea of hiring disabled people. Let us imagine someone wanting to work but being prevented from doing so because the hiring manager feels uncomfortable around them, does not understand the way in which they relate to the world or has preconceived ideas about their ability. That is pure discrimination. It is not always deliberate, but it must feel like it, whether it is suffered because of benign ignorance or bigotry. We must think about how to get rid of the ignorance that the report talks about, and we must give neurodivergent people the confidence that the law will support them if they are subjected to bigotry.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s report talked very much about the soft power end of tackling that, but we also have to think as a society about the harder end. We have discrimination law in place for people with disabilities. Perhaps we need to think about how to give that more bite. I admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done that in his review, and it probably was not in the terms of reference, but it is important to remember that context when considering this issue. We simply cannot let generation after generation of very talented people be wasted in this way.
The review’s key recommendations are only a first step on the road to eliminating some of the barriers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, although he is appropriately passionate about what he discovered in his review. Undoubtedly, many of the recommendations have the potential to have a positive impact on autistic people’s experiences and open up those important vistas of opportunity for them in our society.
The review rightly has a strong focus on collaborating with autistic people, employers, employer organisations and specialist support groups. That is important because there are unique insights to be had. Clearly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s report has done that very well. For example, shadow Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), went to an event attended by BT a few months ago to highlight how to improve its hiring practices and workplace support for neurodivergent people. She told me that BT spoke highly not only of the positive benefits felt by autistic employees, but of how the company has been able to capitalise on the unique skills that they bring. There are many examples of that, some of which we have heard today.
The review has been largely welcomed, but we must ask how quickly it can be implemented and whether we can give it a bit more bite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very gentle in his way, and no doubt he has been sent down particular railroads by the Government in producing his report. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that other neurodivergent and disabled people benefit from measures similar to those outlined in the review? What can she say to back up the remarks made by the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), about increasing the predictability and speed of access to work, making it easier for people to know that they will be supported in a practical way if they make the step into work?
Over the last few years, the Government have brought a hodgepodge patchwork of piecemeal measures claiming to strengthen and improve the rights of disabled and neurodivergent people. There has been lots of activity, but very little effective output in terms of a change in the number of people with disabilities in work. We had the national disability strategy, which was largely viewed as tinkering around the edges. We had the health and disability White Paper, which raised more questions than it answered. We had the disability action plan—again, a smattering of well-received, small policy ideas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham pointed out, we had the dropping of the target for increasing employment of disabled people more generally.
We have had consultation after consultation, pilots and various hearts and minds initiatives with employers, but little has changed, as we have seen in the Buckland review. We need proper action, not more gentle observations. We need to deal with the societal barriers that make the lives of people with neurodiversity challenging and their employment prospects far too narrow.
On inclusion measures, there was a contradiction that struck me when listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, between the bleak picture that the review paints of the continuing barriers that autistic people face while trying to get into work, and some of the other attitudes that can be discerned in the Government about how to deal with that. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), is on the record saying that equality, diversity and inclusion measures have already gone too far, dismissing them as “snake oil” and performative, and deriding disability equality and inclusion measures in the economy as woke and something to be eliminated and driven out. That sends confusing and mixed messages about the Government’s approach.
I hope that the Minister’s response will include a far more positive approach, telling us that the Government intend to do something about the review. I hope that they will take up some of the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham raised in his contribution about targets rather than nice words and warmth, which we all agree with. We want targets and a commitment to practical action, not just a repeat of the issues about Disability Confident employers. As my right hon. Friend said in his remarks, analysis shows that disabled people do not report better experiences working for Disability Confident employers compared with employers that are not part of the scheme. An employer can say that they are Disability Confident without employing a single disabled person. Is it not time for targets, and transparency about the numbers of people with disabilities who are in work? Is it not time for reporting, more rigour and, if needs be, an application of the law?
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for introducing this important debate on autism employment. It is a pleasure to follow the Lesbian Visibility Week debate. I had the pleasure of hearing Dame Kelly Holmes talk about how it had changed her life at an Inspiring Leadership Awards this week. Let me take the opportunity to put on record our covenant that covers disadvantaged girls and vulnerable young women.
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for mentioning Dame Cheryl Gillan. I pay tribute to her passion and commitment in championing autism and its opportunities, and understanding of the individual, which is so important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon also does that so well. I firmly believe that autism should not be a barrier to starting, staying or succeeding in employment. I know that all Members present and those watching share that vision. Although not every autistic person can work, given the right long-term support—not just to get into work, but to progress in work—the vast majority could. One in 70 people is autistic, which is about a million people across the UK. Giving more autistic people the chance to get into work is incredibly good for them, as we heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon today.
There is a huge opportunity to tackle economic inactivity. The talent range and myriad potential must be realised, and I will do my utmost today to give an update on many of the questions raised and what comes next. We know it is good for employers, in building that diverse workforce, to work with more diverse customers. In my role, in answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), it is about proper inclusion and action, and turning warm words—not just from me, but from employers and sectors—into action. I can promise her that there has been no railroading on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon should include in his review. I will come on to the next steps, and there will also be a further update on the disability action plan in July. Hopefully we are starting off well in answering questions.
In 2017 the Government set a goal to see a million more disabled people in employment by 2027. I am proud to say that in the first quarter of 2022 the number of disabled people in employment had increased by 1.3 million, meaning that the goal had been met within five years. In the first quarter of 2023 disability employment had risen by 1.6 million in total since the goal was announced. I am aware that progress has been good but not even. I feel this week I am under scrutiny again from the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). I am focused on this next goal and how we review and shape what is next. Members should watch this space.
It is sad but true, as we have heard today, that currently only three in 10 working-age autistic people are in employment, even though we know that the majority of autistic people would like to be in work. Indeed, their families would love to see them progressing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon says the dial needs to be moved on autism and neuro- diversity more widely, and we do need to move that dial. The design we are working on for universal support and engagement with the Department for Education, whether that is supportive internships or broader apprenticeships, has to work for young people and the people in our communities. Seven in 10 working-age autistic people being unable to access independence and the sense of fulfilment that employment can bring is far too many.
Sir Stephen Timms
As the Minister heard, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested a few minutes ago that there should be a target for raising the level of employment among autistic people at least up to the wider disability employment rate. Will she consider adopting that target?
Mims Davies
I am absolutely looking at the right way forward, because for me, if someone acquires a disability, we need to be looking at how they are retained in work and whether they have a particular impairment or need. I am looking at that in the round. As part of the Disability Confident challenges, the new guidance for leadership, working with the CIPD, is important. We need to be talent confident. Many employers want to employ more inclusively. They just struggle with how to do it and so regress to the same old recruitment.
Marion Fellows
There is also an autism friendly employer award, which we should be looking at. I am proud to say that I have that—I am one of the few parliamentarians who do. It is worth raising that too.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point for all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) mentioned the Fair Shot café in Covent Garden. I think we will all be popping down for coffee and banana cake. My predecessor enjoyed his visit there, and I am looking forward to seeing more work like that, because these things are incredibly important.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, talked about job carving, and I call it job design. It is about working with employers, looking at the roles they have, interviewing in the way that suits people and giving long-term support. I totally agree with all the charities that talk about jobcentres always having that individualised approach. I promise the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and all those watching that it is about the right role for the right person in front of us at DWP, so that we can actively change people’s lives. That is what we are in the business of doing; it is not just warm words.
The point on self-employment that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned links to the Lilac review and active, positive choices for disabled people. We recognise talent, ability and entrepreneurship. There is a positive choice there, and access to cash is important.
I will turn to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point on autistic people and the recruitment process. I thank Helen Tomlinson, the Government’s menopause champion, who is also the head of talent at the Adecco Group. Thanks to her support, my officials are working with Adecco and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation to develop new methods for recruitment that work effectively for both autistic and neurotypical applicants, ensuring that employers are more able to secure the talent they need to thrive. The Government are determined to provide the right support. I also note and agree with the point about career progression for autistic people.
Access to Work continues to provide grants for extra costs, and those adjustment passports are key. We are focusing on new employment. I recognise that there have been delays, and that is partly because more people know and understand the value of Access to Work. We are continuing to develop a universal support scheme. I recognise the point that the right hon. Member for East Ham has made, and I hope I have reassured him about the design on that. I cannot cover all the wide-ranging points he made in this debate, but I am happy to write to him on those.
On the challenge of being ambitious and on what comes next, and in terms of what we are looking to achieve, I can announce that my officials will shortly be going out to the autism community to seek expressions of interest in joining the group, starting with the role of chair. It will be a transparent, inclusive process, and the selection panel will be entirely independent of Government. I fully expect that that is where outcomes and what comes next will be realised when it comes to the review’s ambitions.
To conclude, this report is a big and extremely welcome step forward. It has not only produced a plan to overcome barriers for autistic people, but shows a path that can be followed for other groups facing barriers to employment and those with other types of neurodiversity and learning. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon once again.
Sir Stephen Timms
The review made the point about the reform of Disability Confident. Can the Minister give an update on that? Has the evaluation been completed? When will the changes be brought forward?
Mims Davies
There have been some changes, and I have mentioned some of the updates. There is more to come, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in and will welcome, if he can just bear with me. If I am not constantly in the Chamber being examined, I can get on with the bits that I want to bring forward to the House, if that makes sense to those watching. We are seeing some great progress and some best practice. Things always work best when there is real change in getting autistic people into employment. I agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey. I agree with the whole reason for the report, and I thank James and the charity and all those who brought the report together. We need to deliver for autistic people. This is just the start, and may we long continue to deliver on that ambition.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Sir Robert Buckland to wind up.
Sir Robert Buckland
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will exercise my prerogative, because there was a proper debate, with some challenge to the report and the approach taken. May I first say that I make no apology for the fact that the report did not, as is so often the case, make yet another call for a change in the law or ask for another slug of Government money? I just do not think that either will really cut it.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) to talk about the legal framework. We have equalities legislation, and we have a protected characteristic—namely disability—under which autism clearly comes, fairly and squarely. I am absolutely with her in making sure that employers and employees are much better equipped to understand the full ambit of that and what discrimination actually means. She is right that, more often than not, discrimination is not the product of deliberate, malicious or wilful behaviour, but the product of ignorance. I think that word “ignorance” underpins so much of the obstacles that autistic people and neurodiverse people face in the workforce.
Now, I am with the hon. Lady on waging a war on ignorance, but may I say to Opposition Members that they should not confuse perhaps a diplomatic or gentle approach with a lack of inner determination and steel to get change? That has always been how I have operated. I do believe in respect and courtesy, but underpinning that is a determination to hold the Minister to account and to hold Governments of a future complexion to account. That is why the task group has an important role.
I am grateful to the civil servants who work with the Minister for sharing the draft terms of reference with me. The debate can help inform that process further. The terms of reference, which emphasise the independence of the chair and the group, are a good start. We should make it absolutely clear in those terms of reference that the group is free to look at targets, timescales and the sort of approach that I have presaged in my speech and which the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), rightly presses us on. Let us take that away from the debate as something on which we must build.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for mentioning DFN Project SEARCH. DFN stands for David Forbes-Nixon, who is an incredible man whose own son is autistic. With the charity that he set up, he has built this incredible network. She was right to mention that.
I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks. She knows that I will be holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter. Let us use the review as the basis of progress. Let us get industry and business behind us, and let us move the dial on autism employment. Let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the recommendations of the Buckland Review into Autism and Employment; and urges the Government, businesses and the wider economy to implement them.
Single-use Plastics
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Cheap and disposable single-use plastics have become a symbol of our throwaway culture—they are cheap, convenient and now pervade every part of our lives—but that also means that they have contaminated every part of our environment, where they take centuries to break down. They often break down into tiny microplastics that are having a catastrophic impact on biodiversity and human health.
Plastics can be found in ever-increasing quantities everywhere, from the top of Mount Everest to the deep ocean trench. The UK produces the second highest amount of plastic waste per capita, with supermarkets producing 900,000 tonnes of plastic every year at the last count. With production increasing, that figure is set to rise.
The UK public have long been ahead of politicians on this issue and have proven time and again their deep concern for the plastics crisis and their determination to find solutions. That was highlighted most recently in a massive citizen science project, the Big Plastic Count, run by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic. More than 220,000 individuals and schoolchildren agreed to count their plastic for a week, to record the scale of the problem and find out where their waste was being disposed of. Fifty MPs also signed up to take part, and I was proud to be one of them.
The project uncovered that the UK throws away 1.7 billion pieces of plastic every year, but only 17% of that is recycled. The vast majority—58% of it—is burned in UK incinerators, which are often located in deprived neighbourhoods, producing toxic air pollution and often more greenhouse gases per tonne burned than coal. That is a shocking statistic, and a large part of why the plastics industry is contributing such a huge amount to climate change. The industry now produces more greenhouse gases than the entire aviation industry.
Time and again, surveys have confirmed the strength of public feeling when it comes to plastics, and in particular their frustration with single-use plastics. A study by the University of Birmingham earlier this year found the UK public to be more concerned about the threat to society posed by plastic pollution than the coronavirus pandemic or future pandemics, terrorism, economic collapse, natural disasters or artificial intelligence. Plastic-related issues top the list of environmental problems that the UK public want to tackle—plastic in the ocean is first, and the amount produced is second.
A different poll found that 74% of UK residents agreed that, to stop plastic pollution, we need to cut plastic production. When we look globally, it is clear that the problem has grown out of control: global plastic production doubled between 2000 and 2019, and it is anticipated nearly to triple by 2050. A study that came out this week projected that the plastics industry will consume 21% to 26% more of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget to keep warming below 1.5°C—and that was a conservative estimate.
All that means, of course, is that we must design a solution that is appropriate for the enormity of the problem at hand. That means a solution that is global, which requires international co-operation; one that forces companies and Governments to change their behaviour, and one that addresses plastic pollution across its full life cycle from extraction to disposal.
As we speak, countries around the world are attending the fourth round of the United Nations negotiations to try to agree a plastics treaty, but that process currently hangs in the balance. Oil producing countries and fossil fuel and chemical companies are out in force at the negotiations, using all their power, resources and wealth to try to obstruct the process and prevent any deal that would put a limit on the amount of plastic that gets produced. For those companies, the plastics industry represents a lifeline as the world looks to replace oil and gas as an energy source. The global plastics treaty needs to secure a global, legally binding target to cut plastic production radically.
The Liberal Democrats are serious about tackling the problem. We want to end plastic exports by 2030. In a previous Session, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) introduced a Bill that would have set a 2025 target to end non-essential single-use plastics as well as a statutory long-term target to cut plastic waste and pollution significantly by 2042 by phasing out all but the most essential use of plastic. I am deeply concerned that the Government targets on plastic pollution, as set out in the Environment Act 2021, will not be enforced until 2037, leaving the Government 13 years to delay taking action. We are pushing for punitive measures for the Government if they do not achieve the targets.
While the Government say some of the right things on the plastics treaty, we have yet to see confirmation that they will push for a genuinely ambitious outcome, particularly on plastic production. To be clear, the Government have announced their intention to “restrain and reduce” plastic production, but they must go much further and call for a radical target for reduction. They also must provide explicit confirmation that such a target should be legally binding, rather than leaving each country to decide voluntarily how much it will do and when, and they must confirm that such a target should address every single form of plastic production without loopholes, not just those containing the most harmful and toxic elements. The absolute priority in the negotiations is that we must stop the problem at source. That will make our air cleaner, and our parks, green spaces and beaches free from plastic. It will protect wildlife and biodiversity, and help us stay within 1.5°C of global warming.
Although it is crucial to recognise the importance of tackling the issue on a global scale, I would also like to recognise some of the important actions we can take at home. In my constituency we are incredibly lucky to have the Carymoor Environmental Trust, which works to educate children on the impacts of waste on the environment. It runs a session called “fantastic plastic” which looks at the environmental impacts of plastic and ways to avoid single-use plastics. Since 2018 the project has worked with over 58,000 children in Somerset. Since 1996, Carymoor has regenerated 80 acres of a capped landfill site into a beautiful nature reserve and welcomes around 100 schools a year to its visitor centre, where it gives advice on using reusable containers for drinks instead of single-use plastic alternatives.
That wonderful example of local educational work needs to be supplemented by Government policy, and I have been pleased by some of the Government’s intentions. Their reformed extended producer responsibility system will put the full cost of collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of household packaging waste on producers rather than local authorities. It is a step in the right direction, despite being hampered by delays meaning it will not begin until at least March 2025. Local authorities will also be required to collect flexible plastics and films from household waste by March 2027.
Somerset has been preparing for the introduction of these new waste regulations and recently Somerset Council has taken part in a flexible plastics trial. As a proud serving Somerset councillor, I was very pleased by its success. Around 3,600 properties around Frome in my constituency took part and each household was provided with blue transparent bags in which to present their flexible plastic waste. The response has been positive, with over 65% of residents regularly participating in the trial. Just under 500 kg of material was captured each week. If we consider the light weight of this type of plastic, we get an idea of the sheer volume of it that is used each week.
The take-up of the trial demonstrates that there is an appetite among residents to increase their recycling output, and polling from Reloop has found that 83% of the British public express very high levels of support for recycling. However, one issue is the UK’s current lack of suitable recycling infrastructure for flexible plastics. They are expensive to recycle and more work is required on the end-market side to create the infrastructure to make this type of recycling work. Assurances from Government on the cost and support available for local authorities and for industry will help to ensure moves in this direction are a success.
Returning to the recent Big Plastic Count, one participating constituent in Frome told me that they would use 2,000 individual pieces of single-use plastic a year and that it is mostly food packaging. I would like legislation to oblige supermarkets to sell more loose food, which would dramatically reduce unnecessary plastic waste. That would have the twin benefit of cutting down on food waste, as it would encourage consumers to buy what they need, rather than big, pre-packaged bags of fruit and veg. Farmers could also reduce their costly pre-farmgate food waste, which is created when supermarkets mandate certain sizes for fruit and vegetables to fit into their plastic packaging.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for a ban on non-recyclable single-use plastics. We want to replace them with affordable alternatives, aiming for complete elimination within three years. In my constituency, famers have started to look at ways in which they can eliminate their usage of single-use plastics. For example, Tytherington Milk Station, near Frome, operates four milk vending machines—one at the farm in Tytherington, one in Frome, one just outside my constituency in Warminster, and another in Bath—supplying their customers directly, and reducing the farm’s carbon footprint by reducing plastic waste through the use of refillable glass bottles. My constituency is also home to Bruton Dairy, which started to use steel milk churns in a bid to cut down the amount of plastic used. That has proved so successful that over a 12-month period, the dairy sent out more than 200,000 litres of milk in its churns. Innovations and initiatives of that kind should be celebrated and supported.
Let me now turn to an announcement that the Government made earlier today. Having waited since 2018, when they first announced their intention to launch a deposit return scheme, we have now heard their plans. Polling for Reloop found that 69% of the public supported the introduction of a deposit return scheme, and that 89% believed that the Government had at least a fair amount of responsibility for recycling. Despite the lengthy delays, I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to the public, along with Liberal Democrat support for an all-in deposit scheme, and I hope the Minister will say a little about the scheme in his response.
However, yet again the Government are looking to move too slowly: the scheme is not expected to come into operation until 2027, although international best practice has shown that 18 months should be sufficient to establish such a system. It could potentially save about £11 billion, given the social cost of litter and given higher recycling rates, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 0.46 million tonnes a year by 2032. In the light of those benefits, it is vital for the Government to move fast in delivering this long-awaited scheme. I am also disappointed that they have failed to honour their 2019 manifesto commitment to include glass bottles in such a scheme, but I guess that that promise was made five DEFRA Secretaries of State ago.
The scale of the plastic problem that we face is huge, but I believe we have the tools at our disposal to tackle it. The Government have made the right noises, but now is the time to act, both on the international stage and at home. We know of the devastating impact that climate change and plastic pollution have on our environment, so we must address it as a matter of urgency. The Government have been slow to act in the past, and I hope they will now recognise the urgency that is needed. The UK must take its place as one of the leaders in the global movement to reduce our reliance on single- use plastics, and I hope that through the successful implementation of the measures I have discussed today, we will take important steps forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for raising this important issue. The Government are dealing with it, and take it extremely seriously.
We all know of the detrimental impact that single-use plastic can have on society. It makes up much of our plastic waste, and pollutes our landscape and harms our wildlife when it leaks into the environment. This plastic eventually breaks down into microplastics, ending up in our soils, our seas and, unfortunately, our food chain.
Our priority is to achieve zero avoidable plastic waste by 2042 and keep plastic in circulation for longer, moving away from a “take, make and throw away” model and towards a circular economy. Single-use plastics do not fit in with the new model and can be particularly problematic, which is why driving a circular economy is incredibly important. They are typically littered or discarded into general waste, rather than being recycled, due to the difficulty in segregating, cleaning and processing them. We want to move away from a culture of single-use plastics and towards one where, if they cannot be designed out, we reuse and repair products as much as possible, before recycling them at the end of their life.
I am sure that all of us, as constituency MPs, have been to many a primary school and heard the challenges brought forward by students, who want us to deal with single-use plastics. They come up with ingenious ideas. This Government are prepared to embrace those ideas and drive the challenge forward. We must recognise, however, that single-use plastics have an important role to play in certain applications. When used in the right way and disposed of correctly, single-use plastics can help us to deliver the best environmental outcome. For example, there is a direct need for single-use plastics for medical or clinical purposes in certain circumstances. We are bringing out policy to drive the circular economy. It is important to take a systematic, evidence-based approach to policy, as we have done thus far, to drive down the use of single-use plastics.
We have already made significant progress in addressing the use of single-use plastics. The latest step, in October 2023, was the Government’s ban on some of these plastics, including cutlery, balloon sticks, expanded polystyrene cups and takeaway food and drink containers—and restrictions on single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays. That builds on measures that we had already put in place. We have one of the world’s toughest bans on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, which prevents billions of tiny plastic beads from entering the ocean every single year. We also brought in measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, plastic drink containers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds from October 2020, and these restrictions have already had an impact. Straws, stirrers and cotton buds used to be in the top 10 littered items on beaches, but this is no longer the case. Having been involved in many a beach clean-up in my lifetime, I am pleased to see that the use of plastic drink containers, plastic stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds has significantly reduced. I am sure that all of us who have taken part in beach clean-ups are happy that that is the case.
The use of single-use carrier bags in the main supermarkets reduced by over 98% through the introduction of the 5p charge. That represents a decrease of over 7 billion carrier bags. In May 2021, we increased the charge to 10p and extended it to all retailers, building on the success of the policy and creating a level playing field for all businesses. Retailers have donated over £206 million to good causes from the proceeds of the charge since its introduction, and we will continue to review the latest evidence on problematic products in order to take a systematic approach to reducing the number of unnecessary single-use plastic products in circulation.
We have also funded ground-breaking research to address this issue through the £60 million smart sustainable plastic packaging challenge. Supported by a £150 million investment from industry, it seeks to make plastic packaging that is fit for a sustainable future. Through the challenge, we have funded numerous UK universities to innovate and drive cleaner growth across the UK’s plastics packaging and recycling systems. That has supported research on reuse systems that tackle single-use approaches head-on. The Government also support the UK plastics pact, a collaborative initiative to create a circular system that keeps plastic in the economy and out of the natural environment. Business members of the UK plastics pact are responsible for 80% of plastic packaging sold through UK supermarkets, and approximately 50% of the total plastic packaging placed on the UK market.
The impact of single-use plastics can of course be felt across the globe, which is why our work on the global stage is incredibly important. We are working with others, such as the global ghost gear initiative, the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance and the tide turners plastic challenge badge scheme, which helps hundreds of thousands of young people to tackle plastic packaging in their communities. Through our £500 million Blue Planet fund, we are investing in initiatives such as the Global Plastic Action Partnership, to support others in making the transition to a more circular economy.
We know we must go further, which is why we are supporting new global agreements to co-ordinate action on plastics. The UK delegation to the UN environment programme is in Ottawa, Canada, at the fourth negotiation round to develop the first binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her role as Environment Minister, was there in person on Sunday, championing our plastics work abroad, driving progress in these important negotiations, and sharing this Government’s experience of bringing forward legislation quickly, so that others can benefit from a collaborative approach. As a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, the UK is continuously pushing for an ambitious outcome and an effective UN treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040. This includes pushing for a full-lifecycle approach to plastic, designing out unnecessary and problematic single-use plastics, and promoting a circular economy in plastic.
We have further measures to tackle single-use plastics under development. Our incoming collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) referred to, are central to our mission of promoting resource efficiency, moving toward a more circular economy and away from the single-use model. We are putting in place our extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, which introduces measures that incentivise producers to make better decisions and be more sustainable in their design and use of plastic packaging. We will ensure that producers pay the cost of managing the plastic that they put on the market, and will incentivise a reduction in single-use plastics by requiring them to pay higher fees for unsustainable packaging.
The hon. Lady spoke about the deposit return scheme. Today, the UK Government have announced an update on the DRS, setting out next steps and reaffirming our commitment to delivering on this important project. Our scheme will drive the transition to a circular economy by investing in recycling, reducing littering, and offering greater opportunities to collect higher-quality materials for recycling. The update confirms interoperability across UK schemes, the delivery timeframe, and the UK Government’s position on glass drink containers and the implications of divergence from the UK internal market.
After working closely with industry and the devolved Administrations, we have refreshed our programme, and we are moving ahead to introduce deposit return schemes for single-use drink containers across the UK by October 2027. We are committed to ensuring that the schemes work, successively and collectively, across the UK. We are reducing complexity for businesses and consumers, and making sure that consumer behaviour is influenced. We have worked closely with devolved Administrations and agreed alignment on various important points, including labelling, reciprocal returns and container sizes.
Although the hon. Lady did not mention banning wet wipes, I will take the opportunity to do so. On Monday this week, we were pleased to announce that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic across the UK. This follows the public consultation held in autumn 2023, in which 95% of respondents supported the proposed ban.
Wet wipes pollute our environment. They have been found in large quantities in beach litter surveys conducted by DEFRA and the Marine Conservation Society. In the period from 2015 to 2020, an average of 20.4 wet wipes per 100 metres were found on UK beaches surveyed. That is completely unacceptable. Wet wipes, both those containing plastic and those classified as plastic free, were the fifth most found item in the 2022 Great British beach clean, which is, again, unacceptable. In 2023, the Marine Conservation Society reported that 21,000 wet wipes were found on UK beaches. Plastic-containing wet wipes break down into smaller pieces in the water environment, contributing towards microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes will significantly reduce the amount of single-use plastic getting into our environment from that source. That is why we made that announcement this week, which delivers on the Government’s commitments.
As part of the Prime Minister’s vision of creating a smoke-free generation, we are tackling the scourge of single-use disposable vapes. That is why, on 10 April, we set draft legislation before the World Trade Organisation for its members to provide us with any comments. We aim to lay our draft legislation before Parliament before the summer recess.
We are well aware of how much of a scourge littering and fly-tipping can be to our communities. As constituency MPs, we are all constantly challenged by fly-tipping. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, Bradford Council’s decision to close our local household waste and recycling centres in Ilkley and Sugden End will unfortunately have a detrimental impact in the Worth valley and across my constituency through increased fly-tipping.
The Government are also doing more to clean up our communities that bear the brunt of single-use plastic through fly-tipping. For example, we have significantly raised the upper limit on fixed penalty notices by £1,000 for fly-tipping, and by £500 for littering. As of 1 April 2024, councils have to spend the income from these penalties on enforcement and clean up.
DEFRA is also funding a post in the national rural crime unit, exploring how the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping can be optimised, with a focus on rural areas. This work is part of the Prime Minister’s antisocial behaviour plan, which sets out how we will support councils in taking tougher action against those who pollute our local environment.
We have taken regulatory action, and have supported voluntary action by businesses. We are planning a raft of new regulatory actions to tackle the scourge of single-use plastics. These actions will have positive outcomes, and will build on the work that we have done to date. We have introduced a carrier bag charge; reduced single-use carrier bag consumption by 98%; banned the sale of wet wipes; banned the sale of single-use straws, plastic containers, stirrers and stem cotton buds; introduced a ban on microbeads in cosmetic products; and rolled out further bans on cutlery, balloon sticks, expanded polystyrene cups and takeaway food and drink containers, and restrictions on single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays.
We are making great strides towards a circular economy through our commitment to collection and packaging reforms. We are collaborating with the devolved Administrations on banning the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes across the UK. We are increasing penalties and cracking down on those who fly-tip and litter, and we are announcing a ban on disposable single-use vapes. We are leading and funding international efforts, as the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, has done this week in Canada. Finally, we are a member of the High Ambition Coalition, which is committed to negotiating an ambitious UN treaty on plastics.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the House and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that this Government are committed to reducing single-use plastics in this country, and are taking action that will have tangible, real-world impacts. I am pleased to be able to highlight from this Dispatch Box all the measures that this Government have taken thus far, and the continued action that we will take to address the scourge of single-use plastics.
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
Liver Disease and Liver Cancer
(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
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered health inequalities in liver disease and liver cancer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is covering Front-Bench duties in this debate, and who was kind enough to co-sponsor the application for it with me to the Backbench Business Committee. She is a long-standing champion of public services and better healthcare provision for all.
I am grateful to several organisations, including charities, that have helped me with my speech: the British Liver Trust—several representatives are in the Public Gallery—Liver Cancer UK and the Roger Williams Institute of Hepatology. Alcohol Change UK has also been good. I have met its representatives in the past, although not recently, and it has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue.
Before I start on the main points of my speech, I pay tribute to Bob Blizzard, a former Labour Member of Parliament in Norfolk. He did a lot of work in this House on the Hunting Act 2004 and in the fight for animal rights. His family have been in touch and wanted me to mention him. Sadly, he passed away in 2022, with a rare form of cancer, having been diagnosed with it in December 2020. His family therefore wanted me to mention the work of the Alan Morement Memorial Fund, which helps patients and healthcare workers.
To start on my key points, this is an important debate about health inequalities in liver disease and liver cancer. It is particularly timely, given the shocking new data released this month, which shows that we are facing the worst mortality and hospital admissions rates for liver disease in a generation. Ninety per cent of liver disease is preventable and, if diagnosed early, damage can often be reversed and the liver can recover fully. Tragically, however, premature deaths from liver disease have surged to their highest levels in decades, and hospital admissions due to liver disease have risen by almost 80% over the past decade alone, driven by obesity, alcohol and viral hepatitis.
We have seen more than a decade of cuts under this Government. Successive Conservative Governments have neglected patients and failed to take liver disease seriously. Our most marginalised communities, the most at risk of liver disease, have been silenced, overlooked and left behind. The liver disease crisis is almost entirely preventable and reflects a decade of decline in our nation’s health, widening health inequalities and worsening life expectancy.
Geographical inequalities in health outcomes for patients are stark, and the north of England is disproportionately impacted, accounting for more than a third of premature deaths in liver disease in 2022, or 3,728. New data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities highlights that the north-west, my own region, has the highest mortality rate for liver disease in the country, at 35% higher than the national average. The healthy life expectancy in Blackpool is now the same as in Angola, at 54.5 years.
The Government have failed to deliver on their manifesto pledge and levelling-up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy. They scrapped the promised White Paper on health disparities, repeatedly cut the public health grant and in effect decimated the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. They have also overlooked liver disease entirely in their major conditions strategy, and U-turned on their commitment to roll out non-invasive liver scans to 100 community diagnostic centres. Our nation’s liver disease effort is faltering, which is costing lives and piling huge, avoidable pressure on to our NHS. Thousands of people die unnecessarily without access to specialist care, because liver services are consistently overlooked and under-resourced.
Risk factors such as obesity, viral hepatitis and alcohol are most prevalent in our most disadvantaged communities, and mortality rates from liver disease in our most deprived communities are now four times higher than in the most affluent.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on successfully securing this debate. Does he agree that, in the 21st century, the wider expectation in society is that we need to see improving mortality rates from serious conditions? The concern here is that mortality rates are worsening, as he has correctly outlined. That is something we all need to address as a matter of urgency.
Navendu Mishra
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he makes an important point. As one of the most advanced economies in the world, we expect our population to have the best healthcare, and we want life expectancy increasing for everyone, not just in certain postcodes, so I agree with his point.
Almost two thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and nearly four in 10 children with obesity—38%—are estimated to have early stage fatty liver disease. Deaths due to alcohol-related liver disease in England have increased by 87% over the last two decades, due a rise in harmful and hazardous drinking.
The cost of living crisis is exacerbating inequalities and the risk factors facing vulnerable families in deprived areas, with cheap junk food and high-strength alcohol being widely available. It is estimated that over 206,000 people in England are living with chronic hepatitis B, the majority of those cases undiagnosed and unlinked to care. Undetected, it can lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer and premature death caused by liver failure.
Liver disease is a silent killer that is often asymptomatic in its early stages. Shockingly, three quarters of people with cirrhosis are diagnosed in hospital when the damage is irreversible and it is too late for effective treatment or intervention. The impact of late diagnosis and crisis-point hospital admissions on our already overstretched NHS frontline services is pushing the hepatology workforce to breaking point, yet pressures are projected to increase at pace.
My own constituents are at the sharp end of this public health emergency. In Stockport, the premature mortality rate for liver disease in women has surged by 80% since the pandemic. In 2020, it was 12.5 per 100,000, and 2022, it was 22.5 per 100,000. In Stockport, the overall premature mortality rate from liver disease between 2020 and 2022—a three-year range—was 16.5% higher than the national average. I was greatly concerned to learn that the British Liver Trust’s “Love Your Liver” roadshow visit to Stockport last year identified that one in four members of the public had elevated fibroscan readings, which are indicative of liver damage.
Ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by liver disease. South Asian populations are particularly vulnerable to fatty liver disease, due to genetic and sociocultural factors, while migrants from countries where hepatitis B is endemic are at higher risk of developing liver cancer.
Liver disease patients also face stigma and misconceptions, which is hampering earlier detection and costing lives. Liver disease and liver cancer continue to be falsely labelled as self-inflicted, despite being linked to poverty and social deprivation. Almost half of patients with a liver condition have experienced stigma from healthcare professionals, according to recent surveys by the British Liver Trust.
Everyone at risk of liver disease and cancer should have equal access to faster diagnosis, no matter where they live. Accelerating earlier diagnosis is pivotal to tackling health inequalities and narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy. Yet new research by the British Liver Trust shows that fewer than one in five integrated care systems in England currently have fully effective pathways in place for the early detection and management of liver disease. Alarmingly, my local ICS—Greater Manchester ICS—reported the highest premature mortality rate for liver disease in the country, but it is yet to implement an optimal pathway.
The evidence is overwhelming. We can and must do more to support liver disease and liver cancer patients across the UK. The next Labour Government will have a relentless focus on prevention and earlier diagnosis to turn the tide of this epidemic of preventable deaths. When the previous Labour Government first asked Professor Marmot to review health inequalities, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that
“the health inequalities we are talking about are not only unjust, condemning millions of men, women and children to avoidable ill-health, they also limit the development and the prosperity of communities, whole nations and even continents.”
Since then, we have had over a decade of austerity and deep cuts to public health, which have caused improvements in life expectancy to slow and even reverse. Health inequalities are widening and a growing number of people live a greater proportion of their lives in ill health.
We need to look upstream, which is why the next Labour Government will be committed to taking bold action to halt the promotion of junk food targeted at children that is high in fat, salt and sugar.
We also need to talk about early detection. To build an NHS fit for the future, Labour is committed to hitting all NHS cancer waiting time and early diagnosis targets within five years. Recently, I tabled a number of written parliamentary questions on this matter, and the answers do not fill me with confidence about the healthcare that my constituents are receiving. We also need to accelerate earlier detection by doubling the number of CT and MRI scanners in hospitals in England.
I urge the Minister to mirror this upstream focus on early detection by committing sustainable funding in the next spending review for new technology, in order to improve the early detection of liver disease in primary and community care. I also call on the Minister to introduce a new nationally endorsed pathology pathway to improve early diagnosis of liver disease and to ensure that every community diagnostic centre has an assessment for fibrosis.
Liver cancer is the fastest rising cause of cancer death in the UK. As one of the six least-survivable cancers, it has a shockingly poor five-year survival rate of just 13%. Yet public awareness remains very low, and liver cancer patients are overwhelmingly diagnosed at a later stage. Outcomes for many types of cancer have seen huge improvements over recent decades, yet deaths from liver cancer in the UK have increased by 40% in the last decade alone, hampered by the lack of funding, research and innovation.
Before I come to the end of my speech, I want to mention a couple of staggering points provided to me by Alcohol Change UK. Sadly, it is a fact that harm caused by alcohol is on the rise. The pandemic has had a serious impact on alcohol consumption in England. People are drinking at harmful levels and increasing their drinking. One in five people in the UK is drinking above the recommended weekly amount; many want to cut down. Alcohol causes the majority of liver disease, and drinking alcohol increases the risk of liver cancer.
Alcohol has become the leading risk factor for death and ill health among those aged 15 to 49 in England. Alcohol Change UK found, only this week, that alcohol-specific deaths in the UK are the worst on record— 32.8% higher than in 2019. In 2022, 76% of alcohol-specific deaths were caused by liver disease.
This is an extremely serious topic. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for the debate and I am grateful to everyone who has turned up in the Public Gallery, as well as to the Back-Bench MPs who have come to support the debate.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this important debate on health inequalities in liver disease and liver cancer. It is a particularly timely debate, given the recent publication of statistics showing that alcohol deaths in the UK surged during the covid-19 pandemic. While alcohol misuse is not the only cause of liver disease, it is, as we have heard, responsible for a large proportion of cases, and that does need to be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Stockport set out, we need to acknowledge that liver disease has an inescapable link to deprivation. The incidence of liver disease and the risk of hospitalisation and death are all significantly higher in regions and nations of the UK that have higher levels of deprivation relative to London and the south-east of England. It is important to discuss this, and it is welcome that we are having a debate on the topic today. We should do so from the starting point that deprivation leads to poorer health outcomes. In the case of liver disease and liver cancer, that means that someone from the most deprived area is four times more likely to die than someone from a more affluent area. That is not acceptable.
It is now conventional wisdom that preventing a disease is far more desirable than having to treat or cure it. In Scotland, we have rates of liver disease that are far too high. However, I am grateful that the Scottish Government have introduced policies that are making a real difference by reducing deprivation, decreasing the incidence of liver disease and improving early detection.
The Scottish Government, looking at the issue in the broadest sense, have introduced policies such as the Scottish child payment, which anti-poverty charities have described as a “game changer”. Combined with other interventions, it has the potential to lift an estimated 100,000 children out of poverty. That investment is just one example of the Scottish Government intervening at the early stages of life to reduce inequality, and it will undoubtedly help in our fight against conditions such as liver disease, and indeed all other diseases associated with inequality and deprivation.
The introduction of minimum unit pricing in Scotland has also delivered results. In England, where there is no minimum unit pricing, liver disease mortality and morbidity continue to rise, whereas in Scotland, health inequalities are gradually decreasing. This has resulted in chronic liver disease deaths in Scotland decreasing from 17.9 per 100,000 in 2021 to 17.4 per 100,000 in 2022. Let me be clear: those figures are still stark, and more action needed. However, minimum unit pricing has reduced alcohol-related harms and alcohol-specific deaths by 13.4%. That is surely an intervention that we should now see across the whole UK to help to tackle liver disease, among other issues.
Scotland’s innovative life sciences sector has produced groundbreaking tests to help to diagnose liver disease at earlier stages, when damage can be reversed and the progression to cirrhosis or cancer halted. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the reality is that three in four liver disease patients present at crisis point, usually in A&E, with cirrhosis and all the horrible symptoms that come with that condition. Researchers from the University of Dundee have developed the new intelligent liver function test, which uses an algorithm to perform additional investigations on abnormal blood test results. The test can help to refer patients to specialists earlier than would otherwise be the case, minimising the workload of GPs in primary care and increasing the diagnostic rate of liver disease threefold. It has the potential to revolutionise the diagnostic pathway.
Focusing on tackling alcohol misuse, obesity and viral hepatitis are all important in lowering the rate of liver disease and liver cancer, but we cannot escape the fact that the UK Government’s decision to inflict more than a decade of austerity has exacerbated the inequalities and deprivation associated with liver disease. If the UK Government want to get serious about tackling liver disease, they need to get serious about tackling inequality. Threatening to cut the benefits of disabled people who are unable to work does nothing to tackle inequality. Forcing real-terms cuts on departmental budgets that are already strained because of inflation does not deliver the services needed to tackle inequality.
The UK has one of the highest levels of regional inequality in Europe, and until there is a real and concerted effort to change that basic fact, poorer outcomes for liver disease and liver cancer, particularly among the most deprived communities, will remain stubbornly hard to improve. I hope that we will hear today about the action that the UK Government are willing to take to ensure that that statistic quickly becomes a thing of the past.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this important debate, and hon. Members for their excellent opening speeches, setting the scene.
Addressing liver disease and cancer has for far too long been put on the back burner. Despite the vital work of organisations like the British Liver Trust and Liver Cancer UK, liver disease remains a leading cause of premature death, and is now the fastest rising cause of cancer death in the UK, yet 90% of liver disease is preventable, and it is in many cases reversible. It is a travesty, and an indictment of the state of our healthcare system, that three quarters of people living in the UK are diagnosed when it is too late for effective intervention or treatment.
I am acutely aware of the effect that liver disease has, because Washington and Sunderland West is at the heart of this public health crisis, which disproportionately affects those living in the north-east. In Sunderland, hospital admission rates due to liver disease were, shockingly, 84% higher than the national average in 2022-23, and the region suffers one of the worst hospital admission rates in England for women with liver disease. We see the hand of inequality stretch even further, as over a third of all premature deaths reported in 2022 were in the north of England, despite the Government’s manifesto pledge and levelling-up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy. The Government’s inaction on tackling health inequality is clearly indicated by the simple fact that, since the Marmot review was published in 2010, health inequalities have widened.
If we are to tackle this issue, we must finally start to tackle its root causes. We must reform our approach to liver disease and cancer, no longer allowing the prevailing myth of it being self-inflicted—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said in his opening speech—to impact policy decisions, when we know the fatal consequences of the status quo. Despite hospital admissions caused by liver disease having risen by almost 80% over the last decade, liver disease was omitted from the major conditions strategy and was overlooked in the core modalities for community diagnostic centres.
We owe it to all those affected by liver disease to set out a proper plan to improve diagnosis and treatment. We must take a holistic approach, focusing on improving every area, from research to prevention to treatment. I believe the creation of the new nationally endorsed diagnostic pathway will be key to ensuring earlier diagnosis, with less regional disparity. In the short term, I urge Ministers to deliver a prompt and comprehensive review of adult liver services by NHS England, and to ensure that local health commissioners learn from areas where fully effective pathways for the early detection and management of liver disease are already in place.
We must no longer ignore the simple truth that we cannot improve outcomes for liver disease and cancer if the staffing crisis, long waiting times for diagnosis and barriers to accessing specialist care once diagnosed continue. We are seeing it with liver disease, where the cross-over of specialist services means that those affected experience the pressures on the NHS acutely, but the same story is told in every aspect of healthcare. We must deliver more scans and more appointments every year if we are to catch cancer early.
I am pleased that Labour has committed to a £171 million a year investment to provide the NHS with state-of-the-art equipment and new technology to cut waiting times and speed up diagnosis and treatment. I very much hope we can take momentum forward from this debate and push the Government to finally implement measures to increase diagnostic rates, invest in preventative measures and improve treatment for liver disease and cancer, because those seeking treatment cannot afford for us not to.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I am very grateful to the British Liver Trust for its comprehensive briefings and support for this debate. The Alan Morement Memorial Fund, the cholangiocarcinoma charity, has also provided a very helpful briefing on liver cancer.
I often do not speak in debates on health matters, because they are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I have a personal link to this issue. My husband, Joe, was diagnosed with stage 2 non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in 2019. He has taken significant efforts to deal with that condition, because when caught at that stage it is reversible. Like many men, he did not go to the doctor for far too long, and he had that diagnosis when he finally went to get it checked out. He has been clear that tackling it has been challenging—we consciously have to do an awful lot more to keep ourselves healthy; we live in an obesogenic, alcohol-focused environment, so there are always things to tempt us back into bad habits—but he continues to go on with that challenge.
Joe has talked about the stigma around the disease. Almost three quarters of people with a liver condition have experienced stigma, and almost a third feel that it has prevented them from receiving medical care. It often comes from the association of liver disease with alcohol misuse and viral hepatitis. We must do everything we can bust that stigma so that people go and get the treatment they require as soon as possible, rather than putting it off, because the risks of doing so are very serious.
I also want to mention the read-across to the contaminated blood scandal. Some of those infected with hepatitis C did not know they had been infected because of the subsequent cover-up of their medical records, and some did not find out until serious damage had been done to their livers. For some, the news sadly came too late. I have heard stories at the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood about people whose death certificates cite chronic alcoholism as the cause of the disease, even though they had never touched a drink. There is a real stigma around liver issues, which we must do our best to bust.
We have a public health emergency that the Government ought to take very seriously indeed. Liver disease and liver cancer continue to be significant issues in Scotland. Liver disease is a leading cause of premature deaths in Scotland, above breast cancer and suicide, and deaths due to chronic liver disease in Scotland have increased by 85% in the last three decades. There was an impact during the pandemic, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) also mentioned. I think that speaks a little to the alcohol culture that we are all focused on. I mean, how many people have heard the phrase “wine o’clock”? It has been minimised and reduced to not really mattering at all, but that alcohol culture leads people into harmful habits, and society downplays that.
I was glad to see the Scottish Government respond to the alcohol culture with minimum unit pricing, which has reduced the consumption of alcohol in Scotland by 3%, reducing deaths wholly attributable to alcohol by 13.4% and hospital admissions due to chronic conditions such as alcohol-related liver disease by 4.1%. Alcohol-specific deaths have risen more slowly in Scotland than in England, highlighting that the situation could have been much worse had Scotland not taken the bold step of introducing minimum unit pricing. The greatest harm reduction impact has been among the more deprived groups in Scotland, so there is an important protective factor.
Will the Minister consider bringing in minimum unit pricing in England? The small weakness of minimum unit pricing is that it puts the profits back into the hands of those selling the alcohol, because we do not have full control over the taxation system for alcohol in Scotland. It would be incredibly useful if we had all those powers in Scotland, but an intervention in England might provide an opportunity to do that. Removing the duty escalator on alcohol has meant that alcohol has got relatively cheaper.
I also want to mention the work happening in Scotland, which is showing signals of incremental improvements following the Scottish Government’s focus on prevention and earlier diagnosis. The same progress has not been seen in England, where liver disease mortality rates are at their highest level in decades; hospital admissions for liver disease have risen by almost 80% over the last decade alone.
In Scotland, by comparison, liver disease death rates between 2021 and 2022 decreased from 17.9 per 100,000 to 17.4 per 100,000, and hospital admissions caused by liver disease decreased by 1.5% between 2021-22 and 2022-23. My own health board area, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has seen the largest fall in chronic liver disease death rates, which is really quite impressive given the health challenges that we have faced. That is quite significant.
When the British Liver Trust “Love Your Liver” roadshow was on Argyle Street in my constituency, I was struck by the number of people interested. Glaswegians are a very curious bunch; you cannot do anything without somebody asking a question and stopping to find out what is going on. People were like, “Oh, a liver test. I’ll queue up and wait for my liver test in a van in the middle of the city centre.” Around 100 people were scanned that afternoon and 15 of my constituents were later given a referral to their GP as a result, so there needs to be more testing and encouragement of people to go forward and check. It really is important.
Such screening in a community setting is a lifesaving intervention—we should make no bones about that. People should be able to access that at a simple community level. I am sure many colleagues in this place will have had their liver scanned in Parliament, which was welcome. Fibroscan readings have been reassuring in a lot of ways although, with health charities’ propensity to come in and do tests on MPs, I am sure they will find something wrong with me at some stage. However, it is welcome and important that people feel they can go for tests and that there is not a stigma in doing so.
So, there has been progress in Scotland. The intelligent liver function testing pathway developed by the University of Dundee uses an automated algorithm-based system to further investigate abnormal liver function test results based on initial blood samples from primary care, so further important development is happening in Dundee. I am sure the Minister would be interested to hear that the technology is also cost-saving to the NHS by over £3,000 a patient, which is significant. The tests are now being rolled out and piloted in parts of England.
I will touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said about austerity and its impact on public health. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health in my constituency has done a lot of research into the subject over the years. It says that the years of Tory austerity have cost people dearly, through damage not just to public health services but to people’s life outcomes. My hon. Friend was correct to point out further cuts to social security for people from the Westminster Government, because that makes it more difficult for people to make good and healthy choices in the foods they buy and the lifestyles they have. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health said that it will take another decade just to get us back to where we were in 2010. That is 20 lost years of people’s good health, which will have a significant impact for a long time to come.
Navendu Mishra
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. We already know that people who live in lower-income and more deprived areas have a lower life expectancy than people who live in more wealthy areas. The data from Alcohol Change UK tells us that people from more economically deprived groups experience higher rates of liver cancer and are less likely to receive treatment. There are also higher rates of liver cancer among people from Asian and black African backgrounds than among people from white backgrounds. That tells us that people who have a lower income or live in more deprived areas will die sooner. On the hon. Member’s point about austerity, does she agree that the Government have not done enough in the last 14 years to address the issues?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree. I see that very much from the varied communities that I represent. It is baffling that the more recent Marmot findings have come as a surprise to some in government. I remember doing modern studies at high school and learning about the Black report and the inverse care law. It feels as though this Government are no further forward. In fact, in some respects they are much further back in tackling long-lasting health inequalities.
I shall now discuss the public health aspects. The Scottish Government are consulting on advertising restrictions on food and drinks that are high in fat, salt and sugar, which again are disproportionately marketed towards children and vulnerable groups. That marketing is also found in poorer areas, where there is often a lack of availability of fresh fruit and vegetables. That is significant because one in four children with obesity are estimated to have fatty liver disease, which has huge implications for their health and wellbeing for the future. It is caused by an accumulation of harmful fat in the liver and is present in around 70% of people who are overweight and obese. Fatty liver disease and excess weight together significantly increase the risk of premature death due to cardiovascular disease and a range of cancers, including liver, colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancers.
Although Scotland tries to do its best within the devolved settlement that we have, sadly a number of key commitments from the UK Government to curb childhood obesity are yet to be implemented, including the 9 pm watershed plans to protect children from junk food advertising on TV and the ban on multibuy junk food deals. We have brought in some of those things in Scotland where we can. It does make a small difference but an awful lot more needs to be done, particularly for those in younger age groups. They are being targeted with all kinds of multiple snack-type foods, which are largely unnecessary. Both Labour and the Tories need to stand up to the multinational companies that wish to push those foods on our young people. These things do not come cost-free, certainly not to society.
Will the Government build on the simple, cost-effective diagnostic pathways already in place across the devolved nations? Will they commit to sustainable funding in the next spending review for new technology to improve earlier detection of liver disease? The fact that early intervention—that technology—can permit treatment before things get worse is significant. Will they also introduce a new nationally endorsed pathway to improve early diagnosis, and will they ensure that every community diagnostic centre can provide an assessment for fibrosis? All of those things will help to improve this public health emergency that we have.
It is important that we have discussed the issue today, but I hope that the Minister will listen and make the changes that she can, and that the Labour Front Bench, should they form the next Government, take this seriously. The alcohol-soaked and obesogenic society that we have poses fundamental challenges that Government should intervene on to prevent the next generation of people developing liver disease and liver cancer; we can prevent that progression if the public health imperative is there.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate. I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, for sharing her personal experiences. I know that both Members are great champions for improving health outcomes for all, and I am grateful to them for bringing forward this debate to discuss a neglected but major killer. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for sharing the shocking figures on liver disease in her constituency.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport highlighted, new data released this month shows that we are facing the worst mortality and hospital admission rates for liver disease in a generation. Over 70,000 people die of liver disease and liver cancer each year, over half of whom are people of working age—15 to 64—at a huge cost to the NHS and the economy. We have heard from Members that 90% of liver disease is preventable, and if diagnosed at an early stage damage can often be reversed and the liver can fully recover. It is an avoidable epidemic, which is being driven by obesity, alcohol and viral hepatitis. All those issues increase in prevalence in the most deprived communities, and drive the health inequalities that we are debating today.
The debate is timely because it comes in the week when we received the sobering news that annual figures for alcohol-specific deaths had passed 10,000 for the first time ever. Seventy-six per cent of those deaths were from liver disease, including liver cancer, and it is the third year in a row that deaths have risen across the United Kingdom, breaking previous records each time. The rise was not inevitable and it cannot be explained away as the product of the pandemic. It is a policy failure, and Ministers today must answer for it.
Outcomes for many types of cancer have seen huge improvements over recent decades, but as we have heard, deaths from liver cancer in the United Kingdom have increased by 40% in the last decade alone. It is the fastest-rising cause of cancer death in the United Kingdom. It has a shockingly poor five-year survival rate of just 13%. Public awareness remains very low, with liver cancer patients overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage.
To her credit, the Minister for Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), recognised the problem when she committed in a letter to the chief executive of the British Liver Trust that the Government would make fibroscans available for use at 100 community diagnostic centres by March 2025. I have used one of those fibroscans, and they are a fantastic piece of kit that can tell if someone has liver damage or early signs of liver disease.
Why then, in the answer to my parliamentary question, which I received in February, did the Minister say that the Government had plans for fibroscans not in 100, but rather 12 diagnostic centres at the end of March? What about the other 88? It is all very well the NHS announcing funding for a new diagnostic pathway, but without the kit in local communities, how will that actually work? How and where will patients access scans and tests? Will they be available in the most deprived communities, where outcomes are far worse? What about in GP practices and pharmacies?
Perhaps the Minister could take up Labour’s fully costed plan for a “fit for the future fund” to double the number of MRI and CT scanners, so that we can catch illness earlier and treat it faster, before it is too late. To tackle health inequalities, we must get serious about public health and a prevention-first approach. Under this Government, for the first time in a century, life expectancy has dropped in England, and a growing number of people live more of their life in ill health.
While the decline affects us all, as we have heard from many Members it is not spread equally across the country. Over a third of all premature deaths were reported in the north of England in 2022, and in my city of Birmingham, life expectancy has dropped by nearly two years in just three years. A person in Blackpool is three times more likely to die from chronic liver disease than people living elsewhere in England. In parts of that town, life expectancy for men is just two years above the retirement age—but what do we expect when the Prime Minister boasted about changing funding formulas to take money away from deprived urban areas?
As I mentioned, alcohol consumption alone caused more than 7,500 untimely deaths from liver disease in 2022, and those mortality figures have risen three years in a row. Yet faced with that, the Government have decided to dismantle the central public health function and, as far as I can tell from the non-answer that I have received to written questions on this, they have abolished the Department of Health and Social Care’s alcohol policy team. Can the Minister confirm whether it is the case that there are no dedicated alcohol specialists in the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, and that that team have now been redeployed? Should we take that as an indication of how much Ministers care about this issue, and does that help us to understand why there was no real-terms increase to the public health grant in the spending review in March, even as alcohol treatment services have been hollowed out over the last 14 years?
It does not bode well for the prevention strategy that the Health Secretary has promised before the summer recess. I hope that that does not go the same way as the major conditions strategy and the health disparities White Paper before that. I am encouraged to hear that measures to tackle the obesity epidemic should feature in it, if not alcohol. Fatty liver disease and excess weight significantly increase the risk of premature death due to not just liver cancer but colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancers, not to mention heart disease. When one in six children are obese by the time they finish primary school and one in four children with obesity are estimated to have fatty liver disease, this Government have been sitting on a ticking time bomb for the last 14 years, without taking action. Labour is committed to ensuring that all children get a healthy start to life, with free primary school breakfast clubs serving healthy food, an active and balanced curriculum and a pre-watershed ban on advertising junk food. Can the Minister confirm that concrete prevention policies to tackle the obesity epidemic will be included in the prevention strategy, and will she finally publish the consultation on the junk food ban and get on with legislating for it?
Mortality rates from liver disease are now four times higher in our most deprived communities than in our most affluent. That makes a mockery of the Government’s rhetoric on tackling health inequalities and levelling up. To build an NHS fit for the future, Labour is committed to hitting all NHS cancer waiting time and early diagnostic targets within five years. We will drive a prevention revolution, with measures to tackle alcohol harms and the obesity epidemic: banning junk food ads to children, boosting capacity in local public health teams and recruiting thousands of mental health staff to give more people access to treatment before they reach a crisis. As part of our 10-year health mission, we will improve healthy life expectancy for all and halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between different regions of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed, because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), in particular, knows very well my personal commitment to the best start to life, so to hear her saying that the Government have done nothing and Labour is going to fix it is a bit rich, but there we are.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this important debate; it is an absolutely vital debate. All hon. Members, including the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), have raised the importance of prevention, early intervention and, in particular, early diagnosis. I commend them all for doing that. The Government are taking significant steps. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central talks about what the Scottish Government are doing. I can absolutely assure her that the Government of the United Kingdom are totally committed to improving early diagnosis and treatment, and I will go on to explain exactly what we are doing.
First, it is important to set out that we know that there are 6,000 new cases of liver cancer each year, making it the 18th most common cancer, with 5,000 deaths a year; that is 5,000 deaths too many. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) said during his tenure as Health Secretary, regional inequalities are “the disease of disparity”. He was absolutely right because—as the hon. Member for Stockport stated in his opening speech—economic and health inequalities go hand in hand.
Blackpool is a perfect example. It is one of the most deprived cities in England and flashes red on every indicator—for life expectancy, alcohol dependence and liver cancer. No fewer than 40% of the people unemployed there are not fit to work due to ill health, and the rate of death from chronic liver disease is almost two and a half times the average for England. That is an area that I have visited a number of times, to visit its family hubs and to look at the excellent work and huge efforts that go on there to level up to improve the disparities. Nevertheless, there is so much more to be done, and our strategy to eliminate disparities in liver disease and liver cancer is based on two key facts.
First, 90% of liver diseases are caused by alcohol dependency, obesity or viral hepatitis. Secondly, the five-year survival rate for liver cancer is only 13% precisely because people do not come forward with their symptoms until it is too late; early detection is vital. We know what causes liver disease, and we know that diagnosing it more quickly will save thousands of lives. That is why prevention and diagnosis are the twin pillars of our strategy to end inequalities in liver disease and liver cancer across our country.
To be clear, this is not about criticising people for drinking alcohol, but stopping the level of drinking that leads to liver disease and liver cancer. We know that rates of alcohol dependency are double in the most deprived local authorities. That is why, in December 2021, we published our drugs strategy, which does three things. First, it has brought the greatest-ever increase in funding —an extra £780 million—for drug and alcohol treatment, over £500 million of which is going straight to local authorities with the highest levels of deprivation and alcohol dependence. Secondly, the strategy is boosting screening capacity for liver disease, and thirdly, it is beefing up referral pathways to build a seamless system from diagnosis to treatment.
Since we published our strategy, we are treating more people than ever before for alcohol use. In February, almost 135,000 people were receiving treatment, compared with just over 117,000 just under two years ago, which is an increase of more than 15%. NHS England is investing almost £30 million to bring specialist alcohol care teams to hospitals in the most deprived parts of England. Those experts in addiction identify people in hospital with alcohol dependence, start their treatment and refer them to local authority community services where they can complete their treatment, overcome their dependence and move forward with their lives. I pay tribute to all those brilliant clinicians who are helping vulnerable people to turn their lives around.
Obesity is another major risk factor for liver disease and is a real scourge on the poorest parts of our country. During last week’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, we came under fire from hon. Members on both sides of the House who said, “Well, what about sugar? Are you going to ban that too?” This Government are not in the habit of banning things, but I am proud of our record on sugar reduction, healthy eating and obesity.
We have made strong progress in reducing the average sugar content in soft drinks through the soft drinks industry levy: we almost halved the sugar content in soft drinks between 2015 and 2019. I want to make the point that that is not with people saying, “Oh, this drink I used to like, I don’t like it anymore because it’s not sweet enough,” but was actually the result of reformulation that nobody noticed, which is the great thing about reformulation. If we can reduce the sugar, salt and fat content in foods so that people can carry on as normal without having to undertake some punishment routine, that is a good way to tackle the obesity problem.
Alison Thewliss
Having paid close attention to the sugar tax when it was brought in, there was a particular exemption in the products that required reformulation. Milkshakes could contain as much sugar as any of the full-fat fizzy drinks, but were somehow exempted because they had milk in them. Will the Minister perhaps take the opportunity to go away and think about whether they ought to be contained within a future iteration of the scheme?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will not be surprised, because she knows me well, that I am absolutely determined to tackle childhood obesity in particular, so that we can reverse the problems that we have seen in recent years, especially the spike in unhealthy eating and overeating during the covid pandemic. We know that people—both adults and children—are consuming too many calories. As she would expect, I am all over this and I am happy to debate any point with her. I agree on the sugar content in milkshakes, but there are many other foods that we also need to focus on. I hope I can reassure her on that.
For two years, we have been restricting the placement of less healthy products in shops and online to help consumers to make healthier choices. We are building on that progress. By the end of next year, further restrictions on price promotions on television and three-for-the-price-of-two offers in shops will come into force. I have been encouraging the big takeaway companies, the big supermarkets and so on to try to do it anyway— to get ahead of the regulations and to take action now. A number of them, I am pleased to say, are doing just that.
I am also pleased to update the House on the recent success of the NHS digital weight management programme. This week, the Obesity journal published a study showing that almost 32,000 people achieved sustained weight loss with the programme over a single year, which is really positive news. The programme is helping people from deprived backgrounds: more than a third of those referred were from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is obviously early days, but there are positive signs.
The other major contributor to liver disease is hepatitis. Thanks to increased testing and improved access to treatment, we have reduced the number of people living with chronic hepatitis C virus in England by more than half since 2015. Deaths related to hepatitis C have fallen by just over a third since 2015, well above the World Health Organisation’s 10% target.
Liver disease is known as the silent killer because many people are unaware of their condition until it is too late. That is why, as part of our ambition to detect 75% of cancers at an early stage by 2028, NHS England has launched the early diagnosis programme for liver cancer, which aims to prevent liver cancer by actively checking for liver disease in our most deprived areas.
An important part of the early diagnosis programme includes 19 community liver health check pilot sites that were launched in 2022. The most recent data shows that the CLHC programme reached more than 7,000 people in our most deprived areas using mobile units between June ’22 and January ’23. These units are equipped with fibroscans, which is a fantastic new technology, as many hon. Members have mentioned, for detecting liver damage and identifying liver disease before it becomes life threatening. These non-invasive tests have diagnosed more than 830 patients with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis. I am pleased to update hon. Members that there are now eight community diagnostic centres providing fibroscans and a further 14 planned.
For my entire career, I have fought for the principles of fairness and equal opportunity—from helping children and babies in deprived areas to get the best start in life to levelling the playing field for small businesses when I was Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and encouraging young women in my constituency to get into politics. I have done that throughout my career and I will not stop now. I am passionate about making our health service faster, simpler and fairer for all who use it, and tackling liver disease and liver cancer is at the heart of that mission. We have already delivered significant progress and, through prioritising prevention and driving early diagnosis, we have a plan to go further and faster in the years ahead.
Navendu Mishra
I will end on a few remarks. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate from the Front and Back Benches, though I am a bit surprised that we did not have any speakers from the Government Benches other than the Minister. This is an important issue for everyone.
The rate of hospital admissions for liver disease is higher in deprived areas. In 2021-22, there were 211.4 hospital admissions for every 100,000 people living in areas of multiple deprivation, compared with 125.1 in the least marginalised areas. That is quite serious. Additionally, I agree with the Minister about alcohol consumption; indeed, Alcohol Change UK made the point that it is not anti-alcohol, but against alcohol harm.
I will leave the Minister with a few questions. On a personal level, whenever I have gone to her with various issues, she has been extremely helpful and tried to do her best, but I think this is an important issue for the broader Government and the Department of Health and Social Care. I urge the Minister to take urgent action to improve earlier detection of liver cancer and the less survivable cancers. It is critical that the Government deliver on their pledge to diagnose 75% of all cancers at an early stage by 2030, which is the date I have written down—I think the Minister mentioned 2028, which is even better.
To reduce the staggering health inequalities we still face, the Minister must commit to delivering a cross-Government strategy to curb health inequalities and a prompt, comprehensive review of adult liver services by NHS England. We also need a comprehensive cross-Government alcohol strategy that tackles the social and commercial determinants of health. I also ask the Minister what assessments, if any, the Department has made of the inequalities impact of funding cuts to alcohol treatment services. Those are very serious issues.
I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), for her contribution. I hope to work with the Government on this issue. Once again, I thank all the charities and campaign groups that do so much on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered health inequalities in liver disease and liver cancer.
Global Ocean Treaty
(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
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot to me. In preparing for this debate, I have been grateful for the many supportive emails I have received from constituents who are keen to see the global ocean treaty ratified. I am also grateful for the time that Lord Benyon took to hear me strongly pushing him to go faster with his policy. For clarity, although I have a private Member’s Bill that is due to be considered by the House, my remarks will focus not on that but on the process of and work needed to implement this landmark treaty.
This debate is one in which we all agree with the goal: that the UK should ratify the global ocean treaty, also known as the high seas treaty, which was agreed by UN negotiators on 6 March 2023 following nearly a decade of negotiations in which, although I know she would be too modest to mention it herself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) had a driving role. She has been supporting me with this issue and, I am sure, will make a worthwhile contribution later. The UK played a significant part in the negotiations. Our team of negotiators, who were supported every step of the way by Ministers committed to achieving an agreement—and, to be fair, by the main Opposition parties—should all be thanked today.
It is good to note that the UK Government was one of the first signatories to the treaty; however, it still has not been formally ratified by the UK. The treaty is a welcome update to the main international agreement on the oceans, which was adopted way back in 1982 and came into force in 1994: the UN convention on the law of the sea. That established the high seas as international waters in which all countries can fish, ship and do research, but did not include any specific protections for marine biodiversity. The global ocean treaty will change that by providing a legal framework for establishing marine protected areas, to protect against the loss of marine wildlife and share the genetic resources of the high seas.
With the current legal framework now out of date, every week that goes by without the new treaty in place sees the precious environment of our oceans put at risk. As soon as 60 countries ratify it, the treaty will enter into force and we can ramp up international action to protect our shared ocean, mitigate climate breakdown and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people worldwide. Hence, the UK should make progress to get the treaty ratified quickly and within the remaining period of this Parliament—[Interruption]—despite the objections of some people’s mobile phones.
One question that some listening will ask is: what is the potential impact once the treaty is enforced—what are we actually seeking to achieve? At its heart is the delivery of the 30 by 30 target. For background, the UN convention on biological diversity aims to promote biodiversity conservation and includes a focus on the identification of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. In 2022, the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was adopted at the 15th conference of the parties. It included a target to ensure that
“by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas…are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”.
That is now commonly referred to by the much snappier title of the “30 by 30” target. The global ocean treaty is crucial to enforcing that pledge, because without the treaty there will be no legal mechanism to set up marine protected areas on the high seas. We could declare them, but it would be open to some to simply ignore them.
The UK has committed to 30 by 30 and, in an election year, it is worth noting that the three main parties of Westminster are broadly committed to the agenda. The UK is also the leader of the 77-country global action alliance that champions ocean action and conservation towards the target. In that area, we can also be proud to be practising what we are preaching to others within our own waters. Some 38% of UK waters are included in a comprehensive network of marine protected areas, and within the overseas territories more than 60% of waters are protected and sustainably managed within the blue belt. We have a good record, so we should want to show it by being one of the first 60 to ratify the treaty.
We must see the global ocean treaty in the context of the wider work being done to protect our oceans. A few years ago, the idea of mining the deep sea would have been confined to a sci-fi film. Now, technology makes it possible, and areas that until the last century man had never seen or touched, which harbour some of the most unique biodiversity, are under threat. I therefore very much welcome the announcement on 30 October 2023 that the UK would support a moratorium on the granting of exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. As a nation, we should be driving the need for the ISA to develop strong, enforceable environmental regulations, standards and guidelines before any mining commences, while adopting a generally precautionary approach to this novel practice.
Deep-sea mining could pose a new threat to the deepest parts of the oceans, but another threat has been building for decades, and has now touched even the deepest parts of our ocean and washed up on the most remote shores: plastic. I welcome the Government’s work to reduce the use of single-use plastics, some of which might be used only for a couple of minutes but last centuries in the environment. The fact that a litter pick in Torbay found crisp packets from the 1980s, with some from the 1960s being discovered nationally, speaks volumes about what a moment’s idleness can produce. I am pleased that the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is committed to achieving an ambitious treaty by the end of 2024. We need a clear and strong set of global standards to tackle the problem. Each nation can make its own contribution, but it is inevitable that a global approach is needed.
I note the aim of ending plastic pollution across the globe by 2040, including by restraining and reducing plastic production and consumption to sustainable levels, promoting a circular economy for plastic, and managing plastic waste in an environmentally sound and safe manner. I still recall how difficult it was during my time in local government, back in the 2000s, to get a contract for the processing of plastic collected for recycling that could guarantee that the plastic would actually get recycled, rather than shipped abroad, often to take advantage of labour and environmental practices that were banned in the UK. At that time, it was also well known that many of the items collected could end up as landfill, and not recycled as claimed when they were collected. It was said that they had been recycled simply because they had been exported for that purpose.
I generally welcome the written ministerial statement of 25 March, which provided a welcome update on the current position on ratifying the treaty. As of that day, the agreement had gained 88 signatures and two ratifications out of the 60 needed—although I understand that the number of ratifications is now four, with Belize, Palau, Chile and the Seychelles having formally ratified the agreement. The treaty was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 16 October last year. According to the statement:
“Before the UK can ratify international agreements, legislation needs to be in place to ensure that new obligations can be complied with…The provisions in the agreement on marine genetic resources…require a clear legislative framework, including substantive provisions in primary legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 67-68WS.]
Hence my introducing to the House a Bill to provide a legislative vehicle for just that.
The Government’s statement also outlined how the treaty creates new obligations for UK businesses, in particular the pharmaceutical, agricultural technology, cosmetic and chemical sectors, along with science and research. It also outlined that
“thorough engagement with key stakeholders is underway to help to ensure that implementation is effective and avoids any unintended consequences.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 68WS.]
Few would argue with a statement like that, but we do not want any delay in getting vital protections in place for our oceans—hence our wanting to ratify the treaty as quickly as we can.
My meetings with the Minister in the other place and officials were interesting, and I welcomed the written statement formally confirming the Government’s intention to ratify. However, given the importance of this work and the impending general election, it is no surprise that many stakeholders are keen to see the Government, who were so keen to get the global ocean treaty in place, be the one that ratifies it—thereby ruling out its ratification being subject to any of the vagaries of future politics, which are inevitable in an election year.
I note that the statement last month indicated that the Government are preparing legislation, with their aim being to implement and ratify the treaty in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025. I understand that that target is shared by some other countries, but as always I am keen that we set the bar. Hitting 60 countries as quickly as possible is important because the first conference of the parties will meet within the first year of the agreement entering into force. That is when the real work of the treaty can start.
I note that the UK is already part of the preparatory commission to be established by the United Nations to prepare for that conference. It has been indicated that the legislation will come in the first part of the next Parliament, which could be later this year but similarly could be nine months away. Yet would this be a top priority in a new Parliament in the way that it has clearly been for this one and this Government? The sooner we hit 60, the sooner the first conference of the parties will take place.
Given what I have already outlined, there are some specific points to which I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response. First, what timeline have the Government set themselves for completing the work on drafting the legislation? Why could it not be done by summer for an autumn introduction? Secondly, what prevents a legislative slot being used in the latter part of this year, given the obvious wide support that the legislation could command across the House and in the other place and—although I do not want to speak for them—the likely support we would have from the Opposition for moving it through this place relatively quickly? Thirdly, from her engagement with other countries, when does the Minister expect the 60-nation mark to be hit?
The global ocean treaty is a landmark treaty. It is the basis of delivering the 30 by 30 target, which would protect vast areas of our ocean and the biodiversity within them. Over the past decade, the Government have helped to drive forward the creation and negotiation of the treaty. Individual Ministers have worked with determination to get it agreed and to put the UK’s signature on it. The final stage is ratification. While the pledge by World Oceans Day next year is welcome, surely the Government must want the ratification of this landmark agreement to be a landmark achievement they can cite to voters when the general election comes.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I expect to go to the Front Benchers just before 3 pm, to give Kevin Foster two minutes at the end to wind up.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) most warmly on securing time for the debate. I hesitate to predict anything in politics these days, but I have more than a strong suspicion that this may be one of those occasions when we are all in violent agreement with each other. In order that everybody may have the opportunity to say what they have to say, I will try to keep my remarks suitably brief.
I am quite happy to acknowledge the leading role the Government have taken in the past 10 years that has brought us to the agreement of this treaty. The target of a 30% protected area for the high seas is a significant one. It will not be easy to achieve, but it is an important goal that we should aspire to. Of course, what happens on the high seas may be outwith the jurisdiction of our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, but it is still nevertheless important for the inshore waters on which we rely in my constituency in particular, so we see this as an important opportunity for us. This is also an important opportunity for Britain to continue the leading role we have taken so far. The target of getting 60 countries to ratify the treaty is an important one, and when only four countries have currently ratified it, for Britain to step up to the plate and give early ratification would make a significant difference.
The truth of the matter is that, so often when it comes to what happens at sea, what happens is out of sight and out of mind, and things that happen on the high seas happen in a state of ignorance, because we simply do not know what goes on there. That is not just in environmental areas: if we consider the labour standards and rates of pay on many deep-water fleets, we will see a similar situation.
For me personally, one of the most important aspects of the treaty is the duty that it gives to parties to assess the environmental impacts of things such as plastics. The growth of plastic pollution has been a blight on our shores for decades. The alarming thing I have found in recent years is that when I do a litter-pick on a beach and end up looking at it and thinking, “Well, this is absolutely pristine,” I then spend another 10 or 15 minutes carefully going over it and realise that even in that short time I can fill a carrier-bag with small pieces of plastic. As an islander both by birth and by choice, I see that all the time when walking around our coastlines. The blight of plastic pollution must be tackled. We made so much progress following “Blue Planet II” in 2017, but then along came the pandemic, the closedown and the necessary biosecurity measures. As a consequence, we have lost so much momentum. This treaty might be one opportunity to recoup some of the lost ground.
The hon. Member for Torbay said that our high seas have unique biodiversity, and he is absolutely right. Of course, we used to have lots of unique biodiversity; we did not have to look to the high seas and the oceans for it. On dry land, however, we have already seen the loss of so much of our critical biodiversity and I fear that it has probably gone forever. So this treaty is for all of us a second chance. Our oceans are the lungs of our planet and if we do not take the action necessary for the ratification of this treaty now, we risk treating the biodiversity of our high seas in the same way that we have treated the biodiversity on dry land, and we will all be poorer as a consequence.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Ms Vaz, to serve with you in the Chair for this debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this debate. I know how passionate he is about this issue and he has already referred to my commitment to making sure that we get the treaty ratified as soon as possible. That is why I was happy to support his private Member’s Bill. Although I appreciate why it might not be possible to use that Bill as a vehicle for other things—I am sure the Minister will explain in more detail later—it is important that we continue to ensure that the Government, including our good friends at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are as speedy as possible in sorting out the issues, so that we can get the treaty ratified.
I should also pay credit not only to Lord Benyon but to Lord Goldsmith, who has done a lot of work on this issue. Gosh—the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I really got the bug for marine. I think that is not only because my constituency is Suffolk Coastal but because I grew up in a village just north of Liverpool. The sea has always mattered to me in many ways. As I say, I now represent Suffolk Coastal, where I look out at the north Sea, which is a lot colder.
The amount of biodiversity in the North sea, and the importance of the oceans, was brought home to me in my time working on coral reefs, which face the threat of ocean acidification. I also learned about the amazing science that we have in this country. The National Oceanography Centre is no longer formally a Government body, but is still very close to the work that the Government are trying to do. Indeed, it is still leading the United Kingdom’s National Decade Committee on the ocean and the chief scientist from DEFRA was at its conference just a couple of weeks ago in Barcelona.
The world and this Parliament are united in wanting to ensure that we take better care of our oceans, recognising how much the oceans have taken care of us and our planet for millennia, although we will never really properly compensate for some of the harm that we have done there.
However, the opportunity is now. That is why we have done the work in creating many marine conservation zones and marine protected areas, while continuing to try to strengthen the protections that exist, despite people like the European Union taking us to court on protecting areas such as the Dogger Bank—the extra controls that we have put in recently, to protect the sand eels that are the food for the puffins and kittiwakes. Those are the sorts of things that might not matter to every person in the street, whose greatest worries will understandably be about the cost of living and similar matters, but they are long-term strategic issues. That is why it is good to have such cross-party support and focus on tackling them.
It is less than a year ago that the final agreement was adopted in New York, back in June. When the treaty was opened up for signatures during the United Nations General Assembly on 20 September, it was my privilege to be alongside Lord Ahmad when he signed it formally on behalf of the UK Government. There was an interesting debate that day on whether the United States would sign it or not, so I was very pleased that President Biden gave the go-ahead because it matters that we have people sign up to these treaties. I will always give huge credit to the United States for a number of its activities, but they have never signed up to the convention on biodiversity. It is not a shame—they have done that for certain reasons—but the most powerful global treaty we have ever had is the Montreal protocol, signed back in 1987. The United States being a part of that really made a massive difference in ensuring that it was a priority for them in their activities around the world.
The threat to the ocean is so widespread, even from things like illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. That sort of harm is very difficult and challenging. In my time at DEFRA, I was proud of working to ensure that oceans became a very prominent part, while recognising the special relationship within Government, where the Foreign Office takes the lead on UN treaties and the like, and the importance of collective working. The creation of the blue planet fund is probably one of the most significant things we will have done on environmental improvement.
While we have been celebrating Earth Day this week, the focus was on plastics, because of the plastics treaty. The oceans have become a sink for carbon and all sorts of different things; they have literally become a sink for our rubbish. We need to continue to work on improving the state of our oceans. An amazing thing happened down in the south Atlantic when a marine protected area was established for the South Sandwich Islands. I recently took part in a debate here on penguins, and it might surprise people to know that through our overseas territories, the United Kingdom is responsible for 30% of the world’s penguins.
We must think about the impact on the building blocks of life itself and how the United Kingdom can, not with pride—pride comes before a fall, or a sin—but with determination lead by example. That is why so many parliamentarians and activists have been keen to ensure that we are leading the pack in getting the ratification done, given all the consequences that come as a result.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am hugely enjoying my right hon. Friend’s speech. She mentioned the overseas territories, which fall under the remit of the FCDO. Bermuda is one of those, and is a champion for the Sargasso sea, which is a huge carbon store and increasingly a rubbish dump. Through its hydrographic service, the Royal Navy has mapped the world’s oceans more than any other country in the world. Surely, this is a golden opportunity for this country to show an international lead.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When UNESCO was considering doing the decade of ocean science, we were right behind it, supporting it and putting people forward from the plethora of excellence we have in this country. My hon. Friend points out the Royal Navy, but there is also the funding we give. As we move forward with this, we need to ensure that it is led by science and expertise, rather than solely ambition, in order to save the oceans that have done so much to save us. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be able to deliver for it to have credibility.
At COP26, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama came together to create the first significant cross-boundary marine protected area, the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor. We helped on that journey and are still financially supporting it; there are good ambitions there. They were well placed to trigger the race, and I hope they succeed, but I have a suggestion for the Minister about what we can do to get into the race. Between Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands, which are obviously part of Ecuador, there is a gap, and I think we should use our resources to accelerate its designation as the first ever biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction zone. We could also get a run-on by working with Namibia and creating a BBNJ zone between it and Tristan da Cunha, which might be simpler. The ambition is there, and I encourage the Minister to discuss that with her officials.
On the treaty, the Foreign Office reply contained various articles and stated that we need legislation. I have to say that it was not particularly detailed. I know we are not supposed to use props, but I have the document, which was circulated to a number of MPs, in my hand; I am happy to share it with anyone who is interested. If the Minister cannot give us a full answer today, it would be helpful if she gave a more substantive answer, perhaps by writing to the Members who attended the debate or by putting a response in the Library.
Will the Minister set out what primary legislation, secondary legislation and other agreements are needed? We want this to happen, and officials said that they should have it ready before the end of this calendar year. I wonder what, with a bit of a heave and a shove, good will and the wash-up, we can do to get it through so that we are not waiting for it. No disrespect to whoever forms the next Government, but quite often priorities change and things take time. We have been leading the pack—we have at least been co-leaders—so let us stay there and ensure this gets delivered properly.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this very important debate and for his speech, and to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who spoke with such knowledge of these matters.
We are discussing the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty, but it is important to see it in the right context. It arose out of a problem with the global biodiversity framework. I was delighted to be in Montreal at COP15 when the global biodiversity framework was adopted. It established the 30 by 30 target to ensure that
“by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”.
But the problem was how to protect areas of our planet whose biodiversity lies beyond national jurisdictions, and how to create an ecologically interconnected system of protection and enforcement when so much of our planet is open ocean, not under the jurisdiction of any Government.
The treaty is the missing piece of the jigsaw. Without it, there would be no legal mechanism even to set up marine protected areas on the high seas, let alone enforce them. The high seas make up 40% of the surface of our planet and comprise 64%—almost two thirds—of the surface of the oceans, but in terms of capacity they represent 95% of the oceans’ volume. We used to think of the deep oceans as a barren wasteland, but we now know they are teeming with life: more than 2,000 new species are discovered every year.
I do not know how much time you spend thinking about whale poo, Ms Vaz, but understanding its importance for life on our planet is quite sobering. Whale faeces, very rich in nitrogen and iron, is critical for the growth of phytoplankton. Like plants, phytoplankton capture large amounts of carbon dioxide and convert it to usable cellular energy. That not only removes carbon from the atmosphere but produces the oxygen that we human animals need to survive. When phytoplankton are eaten by zooplankton and krill, the carbon continues to pass through the food web, creating a healthy ocean.
If phytoplankton do not get eaten, they simply die and sink to the ocean floor where they lock away all the carbon that they have stored.
Known as the “biological pump”, billions of metric tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere are transferred to the bottom of the ocean every year, reducing the impact of global warming. Without the high seas shielding us, we would already be in a full-scale climate breakdown. Over 90% of the warming of the earth between 1971 and 2010 was directly absorbed by the oceans. If we increase the phytoplankton in our oceans by just 1%, it would have the same climate benefits as 2 billion mature trees.
Protection of the high seas is desperately needed for both ocean health and human wellbeing. Properly protecting 30% of the high seas would create havens for ocean wildlife that sustain and replenish the waters closer to shore. Importantly, it would enhance fish populations and food security. The high seas should be a global commons benefiting all of humanity. In fact, they are grossly abused. The result is that 80% of fisheries worldwide are fully or over-exploited, depleted or in a state of collapse. Continuing with the status quo and avoiding the necessary steps to curb overfishing and avert climate breakdown will lead to the comprehensive collapse of fisheries, and the lowest-income nations will suffer the most.
Research has shown that protecting more of the oceans will provide more fish to eat because we create the safe havens for fish to grow to maturity. Orange roughy can live for 200 years. They are not sexually mature until about 30. At full maturity, a female can produce almost a quarter of a million eggs. A female in her 30s might produce only 20,000. So it makes sense to create the marine protection zones that the global oceans treaty will facilitate.
The treaty allows for nations to establish marine-protected areas by a majority vote of ratifying members where they cannot reach consensus. That avoids the blocking stalemates and vetoes that would otherwise come into the political counting. It will ensure the sharing of marine genetic resources, providing equitable access to science and the benefits from ocean discoveries, with a benefit-sharing committee to oversee the treaty’s call for a standard batch ID to be added to genetic samples and subsequent patents on sales.
The treaty establishes the need for capacity building for developing nations to ensure that they can gain equitable access to science, technology and marine genetic resources, and it insists on environmental impact assessments for activities on the high seas that are expected to have a substantial impact. The treaty will not require new permits for research projects exploring the high seas, but it will create a science and technical committee to oversee regulations and react to changing conditions in the oceans. In the context of the last point, let me welcome in passing the UK Government’s announcement of a moratorium on deep-sea mining in October last year.
I am delighted that the UK was one of the first signatories to the treaty, but speedy ratification is vital if we are to reach the triggering number of 60 states that would bring the treaty into force. We have only six years before 2030. If we are to achieve 30% of high seas protection, we have to begin planning now, even before ratification.
Before the general election in 2010, I played a small role in lobbying for the UK to create what was then the largest marine-protected area on the planet, in the Indian ocean. Since then, the Conservative Government have developed their flagship blue belt programme for the establishment of MPAs in the UK overseas territories. I think it is perhaps their single greatest achievement, protecting over 4 million sq km of ocean habitat, accounting for 1% of the ocean’s entire surface.
The MPZ created by the Government of Tristan da Cunha, which was mentioned, is the fourth largest MPA in the world, providing critical habitat for tuna, penguins and the iconic Tristan lobster. In 2024, the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were officially protected by the Government, creating an MPA eight times the size of Wales. Those islands lie on important migration paths for birds travelling from the Antarctic to South America. The waters off their coasts are equally important for various marine species in the Southern ocean. The blue belt programme is a success, and I commend the Government for what they have done, but there have been challenges and disappointments on the way, and it is from those that I hope the Minister will seek to learn when coming to consider how best to implement the Global Ocean Treaty.
The very remoteness that fosters the strong biodiversity in the UK’s overseas territories also creates logistical challenges and capacity issues. While the Government have provided some technical and financial support to address those capacity issues, they know that support has not been sufficient, and it has caused problems with the roll-out of the blue belt priorities. It has also imposed considerable burdens on the already strained capacity of the overseas territories’ Governments.
The unique constitutional status of the OTs has also disqualified them from seeking outside financial support from organisations such as the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Environment Programme. These capacity issues are often most apparent in the fight against IUU—illegal, unsustainable and unregulated —fishing.
Most of the overseas territories do not have access to cost-effective fisheries surveillance and monitoring systems. That makes it difficult to police the MPAs and ensure that they are not being violated. The UK should not restrict the amount of resource that the overseas territories are permitted to allocate to conservation efforts, which it does at the moment. The Government could also allow the territories to access funding pots already put aside for conservation efforts, such as the UK’s contribution to the UN decade on ecosystem restoration.
Territory Government Departments are unable to deliver all the top-down work programmes being recommended by blue belt agencies. More long-term, local staff are required if the programme is to achieve all its ambitions. These problems will be even greater when we think of establishing MPAs beyond the territorial jurisdiction of even our remotest territories.
The Minister will be aware that the Marine Conservation Society has recommended creating a UK Government-led MPA satellite surveillance system, sharing transparent metrics on enforcement in overseas territories’ waters, and also funding observer coverage on local fisheries. Will the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that, under the treaty, we are not simply drawing lines on an ocean map, but are creating robust and enforceable protected areas?
Finally, I support the call from a number of non-governmental organisations and agencies, and from Members today, urging the Government to begin the work of planning the development of these ocean sanctuaries, and not to wait until the treaty is ratified and enforced. Alliances with other coastal states are already there in embryonic form, such as with the Sargasso Sea Commission—of course, the Sargasso sea is also home of one of our overseas territories, Bermuda.
Bermuda’s deputy premier recently called for the Sargasso sea to be prioritised for protection under the new treaty. Can the Minister assure us that she is working with Bermuda and other countries in the region to jointly spearhead a proposal for an ocean sanctuary in the Sargasso sea that might be ready to present at the treaty’s first conference of the parties?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), my South West Bedfordshire constituency is about as far from the sea as you can get. So why does this debate matter to my constituents? Why am I here today? The reason is that the oceans produce half the oxygen that we breathe. It is worth pausing for a moment on that point, given how important oxygen to human life on the planet.
Oceans are the world’s largest carbon sink and have already absorbed 30% of all our carbon dioxide and 90% of the excess heat caused by human activities. Three billion people around the planet rely on the oceans for food and livelihoods. That is a huge number. Just think of the global economy and what would happen to those people if the oceans were not able to carry on supplying that food and their livelihoods. Protecting the high seas from industrial overfishing and mining can lock away carbon, while replenishing those all-important fish populations.
We should also remember the potential of the blue economy for the whole pharmaceutical sector. We know that fungi in the twilight zone of the oceans are highly likely to be a new and really important source of penicillin-like drugs for the future, which can help us to deal with some of the terrible health issues that we face. What is the problem that the global ocean treaty is trying to solve? We know that, sadly, two thirds of the high seas are already experiencing pollution, overfishing and the impacts of climate change. A third of global fish stocks are already overfished, and over a third of marine mammals, such as sharks, are under threat of extinction. Sharks are an incredibly important apex predator—many of us think they are to be feared, but we now know from marine biologists that they have a very important role in the whole ecosystem of marine life.
There is also the whole issue of plastic that is integrally bound up in this, which several other hon. Members have already mentioned. The United Nations believes that some 14 million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean every year. We all do our bit as litter pickers, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, and I am sure we have all tried to do our pathetically small amount on holiday. We all have to do what we can, but that is an absolutely huge amount. We also know that, in the first decade of the 21st century, more plastic was created than in the whole of history up to that point. The production of plastic is on an accelerating curve, and unless we do something about it, we will not get on top of this issue.
A quarter of all fish sold in Californian fish markets have plastic in their gut, according to some recent studies. There are four countries that dump more plastic in the sea than all other countries combined: China—which is by far the worst—Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. The Yangtze river pours more plastic into the ocean than any other river on the planet, and that cannot go on. I say to our friends in those countries—with a degree of humility, because our own record has not been perfect in the past—that that is an issue they need to get on top of.
What needs to be done to address those really serious problems? The UN high seas treaty was finalised in 2023, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for her role in that. It took 20 years of negotiation, and that is a very long time. I am proud that the UK was a member of the so-called High Ambition Coalition to get it done, and I join what every other Member has said about trying to get it ratified as quickly as possible, to provide a really important lead on this issue. The UK blue belt around UK overseas territories has protected an area of ocean larger than the size of India, which is to be welcomed. Closer to home, around England, we have three highly protected marine areas as well, which are also very much to be welcomed. We need to ratify the treaty as quickly as possible. We also need the closely related UN global plastics treaty to be created and finalised by the end of 2024. I am pleased that the UK is a member of High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, because those two issues are integrally connected.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. The contributions today have been excellent. I was beginning to question my life choices when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) started talking about whale poo, but he explained in great detail and breadth why this treaty is important and why it is rightly getting attention today. After decades of campaigning and about a decade of negotiation, it was a landmark moment when it was agreed, and there is no doubt that it will have a positive impact when it is finally ratified.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need 60 countries to ratify the agreement, and as we heard, it will provide a legislative framework for the first time. That is a crucial step if we are to achieve our 30 by 30 goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. All hon. Members present are committed to that, which is a rarity; there is great unanimity about the need for us to get on and ratify the treaty.
I have many constituents, as other hon. Members do, who asked me to take part in this debate, because they understand the importance of the ocean for protecting not just the diverse ecosystem in there but the wider planet. We have seen the effects of the failure to protect our environment in this country alone. A report from the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee published last year noted that, in the UK,
“41 per cent of species have decreased in abundance since 1970 while 15 per cent of species have been classified as threatened with extinction.”
The fact that the Government support the treaty and are undertaking the groundwork is welcome, but there are concerns about some wider aspects of Government policy, such as the progress of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which comes into potential conflict with the ambitions behind marine protected areas. New oil and gas beds can inflict serious harm on the marine environment. Exploration can cause oil spills, which harm marine wildlife and ecosystems. Underwater noise pollution from surveys also causes severe harm to marine mammals, commercially important fish, and invertebrates. There is also direct destruction of habitats such as deep-water sponge and cold-water corals, which form an important part of the natural cycle of our oceans.
Exploration can have a wide-ranging impact on marine life and ecosystems. The treaty is meant to limit those kinds of harms, so it is surprising that some policies seem to conflict with MPAs. Will the Minister comment on how that contradiction will be resolved? Questions ought to be raised about the place of MPAs in UK waters and the commitment to restore 70% of designated features to favourable conditions by 2042. It would be useful to know exactly what measures will be brought in to ensure that that is delivered.
We are short on time, so I will end on a positive note. The treaty is a step in the right direction, which has been decades in the making; we do not want to see more decades go by before we see the results. There are many reasons to be optimistic about where we are heading. The consensus that we have heard today is encouraging, but we have to be aware of wider Government policies. There is a lot of evidence that much more needs to be done to protect our seas—let alone the rest of the planet’s oceans. With 71% of the Earth covered by oceans, we have to pay as much attention to what is going on there as we do to dry land.
Last year, we saw record temperatures in the oceans. We cannot ignore the influence that has on the climate. The oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Importantly, they drive weather patterns, the impact of which we are seeing regularly. Warming oceans also contribute to the increasing melting of ice, which causes sea levels to rise. Everything is connected. It is clear that with every passing year, the battle against climate change becomes a little harder to defeat. Protecting the oceans is a key part of that. Ultimately, it will determine whether we continue to survive as a species on this planet, which is why we really must get on and ensure that the treaty is delivered and begins to produce results.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 2.58 pm.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I apologise for my phone going off while the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was speaking. I did not wish to interrupt his speech.
I strongly support the ratification of the treaty. I follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in hoping that that can be sped up in Government processes so that we can pass legislation before the general election, perhaps in the wash-up period. It is clearly not controversial between parties and it could be done. I see the Minister nodding sagely; she obviously wants to do the same thing but cannot say so, so I will say it for her: I hope that we can get this legislation done as quickly as possible.
There is widespread support for the treaty among the members of the public who are aware of environmental issues. Indeed, the whole attitude towards the marine environment has changed dramatically, certainly during my time in the House. I remember the massive controversy about an Antarctic mining Bill in the late 1980s. It was eventually defeated and withdrawn by the Government, and replaced by full support for the Antarctic treaty. Later, we got the protection of the Southern ocean as a whaling-free zone, and then as a fishing-free zone, so we got the principle of large-scale protection for the Southern ocean. That has meant that the whale population has begun to recover quite quickly. Our participation in the International Whaling Commission also helped to achieve that.
Marine protection zones, and other zones that protect all species, are very important. Some 10% of all marine species are under threat at the present time. I am pleased that we have the massive marine protection zone around the Falkland Islands and south from there, but also around Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands, which has now been adopted by Mauritius, as a continuation of the British initiative.
In addition to the 30% target, we should think more about general attitudes towards the ocean. Obviously, water flows from one place to another, so we can protect one area from mining, overfishing and so on, but unless we have a similar attitude towards the rest of the ocean then, clearly, fish stocks and ocean biodiversity will be severely damaged.
The efforts of deep-sea mining companies will come back. There will be enormous pressure from mining companies and others who want to do seabed mining, just as there is pressure from some in the fishing industry who have a voracious appetite for deep-bed trawling, which ruins coral, ruins biodiversity and destroys the ocean almost for all time. It is about regulation in the whole of the oceans, as well as in the areas that we are seeking to protect.
Many hon. Members talked about plastic pollution, which is clearly very serious. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made the important point that plastic production is rising rapidly all around the world. It is probably rising more rapidly in southern countries than in western Europe or the United States, where there is some degree of regulation. I am not sure that it is possible to have a completely plastic-free life, but a lot of the plastics that we use are completely unnecessary and end up being discarded and wasted. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, we can look at a beach and think that it is beautiful and pristine, but once we start sifting through the sand—we do not have to sift very far—we find bits of plastic waste. That plastic waste is ingested by fish and then eaten by those who eat fish. Having this level of plastic waste is self-poisoning, so we need very tough regulation.
We also need tough regulation on what ships dump in the ocean. Cruise liners and other sea-going vessels are pretty bad culprits. They think that because they are out of sight of land, they can tip anything they want into the ocean and get away with it. That means that we need a much tougher attitude towards dumping stuff in the ocean.
We must also look at the pollution that we create in the oceans around our shores. A phenomenal amount of sewage waste flows into our rivers every year because of the inadequacy of the sewage treatment system and the lack of investment in it by many water companies. It is not just about the obvious unpleasantness of seeing solid waste in the oceans around our shores. A lot of the chemicals flushed down the toilet or put down drains and so on from industrial processes and elsewhere are not treated. That, too, adds to the pollution and poisoning of our oceans, so we need to be much tougher on water company regulation. For example, Thames Water has made a huge profit from its water distribution, but it has run up massive debts of £14 billion. It is paying shareholders with its debts and polluting our seas and rivers at the same time, so we need to be a bit sharper with all the water companies on the levels of pollution that are caused.
I know that the Front Benchers want to speak, and I do not want to go on too long, so I will just say that it is an attitude of mind about the ocean that is important—that if we throw something in the sea, it does not disappear. In fact, it goes somewhere, it causes pollution and it causes damage which eventually comes back to bite us. I absolutely support the treaty and think it is a huge step forward. I hope that we can get it ratified quickly to help the speed of global ratification. I hope that we will play our part in reducing the pollution to the sea from our own sources, and put pressure on other countries that are producing ludicrous amounts of plastic with no thought given to the damage it does to the ocean and to future fish quality and supplies.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made the point about the regulation of international waters—by agreement, obviously—because overfishing in one place has an effect on the loss of food supply for migratory birds or larger sea mammals. That causes an upset to the natural balance and we all pay a price. Let us agree today to get this treaty ratified as quickly as possible, so that we are playing our part in delivering sustainability and clean oceans.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing the debate. The decision to hold Westminster Hall debates slightly earlier on a Thursday is paying off, because it is giving more of us an opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them.
Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I have had dozens of communications— nearly 200—from constituents expressing their determination to see the global ocean treaty ratified and ensure that this debate is well attended. It is particularly encouraging to see Conservative Members make the positive case for multilateralism and the rule of international law. I want to assure hon. Members that the SNP joins the support for the principles of the treaty and the calls for its immediate ratification by the UK Government. If the hon. Member for Torbay’s private Member’s Bill helps to speed that up, so much the better.
The treaty goes by many different names: in full, it is known as the legally binding international instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. More simply, it is known as the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty, the high seas treaty or, as most of us have referred to, the global ocean treaty.
How we name things is important, and sometimes the high seas or international waters are described as some sort of frontier, which evokes dated imagery of unexplored territory that is there to be exploited. Previous frontiers, whether the American west or the interior of Africa, were no such things to the people, flora and fauna that had been there for hundreds if not thousands of years before European or other explorers arrived. The approach of the treaty is important in that it is an assumption not in favour of the exploitation of resources, but in favour of the conservation of the marine environment and the sustainable and managed development of any economic potential.
That potential is significant, as we have heard. Around half of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, but less than 2% of that area is under any kind of legal protection. At the same time, nearly 10% of global marine species are estimated to be at risk of extinction, so there is a need to rapidly enhance our approach and to ensure that treaty obligations can be undertaken and held to account. That means that there will be another round of COPs, but that is vital if we are to meet the 30 by 30 target that was spoken of by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and others.
The point about plastic pollution has also been well made by a number of hon. Members, starting with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Many people in Glasgow North, myself included, recently took part in the Big Plastic Count to better understand our plastic use and how we can reduce our plastic footprint. There is also a campaign for a global plastics treaty that might sit alongside the oceans framework. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what progress has been made on that to ensure a just transition away from the use of single-use plastics in particular.
In Scotland, we stand ready to do our part. Our marine environment is an integral part of life in the country. It is difficult to go anywhere in Scotland and be particularly far from the sea. I am not sure how this compares to South West Bedfordshire, but I think the furthest point in Scotland, Glen Quoich in Braemar, is only about 65 km from the coast. If one goes up to any elevated point, it is not difficult to see either the sea or something that flows into the sea.
The marine environment in Scotland supports about 8,000 species of plants and animals, and new discoveries are always ongoing. Under the SNP Government, some 37% of Scotland’s territorial waters are now designated as marine protected areas, including 247 sites for nature conservation. The Scottish Government have a vision of
“a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine and coastal environment”
managed in a way
“that meets the long term needs of people and nature.”
They, too, have adopted the idea of a blue economy approach to recognise the mutually beneficial nature of, and connectivity between, sustainable economic growth, inclusiveness and wellbeing, and protection of the environment and biodiversity.
Unfortunately, some of the UK Government’s actions to date do not necessarily always meet the same high ambitions. Their decision to grant new oil licences is not a long-term solution to energy security or the cost of energy crisis and is actively damaging to the progress that needs to be made on tackling climate change. It is estimated that the Rosebank oilfield, which the Government seem determined to press ahead with, would, over its lifespan, equal the annual emissions of about 90 countries and 400 million people. The development company’s own environmental statement admits that the construction of new oil wells would have the potential to lead to wider changes in the seabed, the direct loss of species and habitat, and wider indirect disturbances.
The Government have to be very careful about how they use some of the legal mechanisms and instruments contained in this treaty or others or in their own competence. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke—not to my surprise—about the situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos islands. There was concern that when the marine protected area there was introduced, that was less in the interests of the marine environment and more in the interests of preventing resettlement of or the right of return to those islands. Of course, in the end, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that the UK should have engaged more fully with Mauritius before making that declaration, and in 2021 the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that the UK Government do not hold sovereignty over the Chagos islands—but perhaps it turns out that these are just more decisions by “foreign” courts that the UK Government choose to ignore.
That would be my only note of caution. I do not want to break the consensus that we have heard today, but I will just gently suggest to the hon. Member for Torbay that although his initiative today is incredibly commendable and there is clearly consensus in favour of the global ocean treaty and its rapid ratification, the reality is that in recent years the Government have not had the best track record of respecting their international obligations and have been simply dismissing or ignoring decisions or commitments that they find inconvenient.
Likewise, the Government have to consider carefully the message that their attitude sends to other countries around the world. We cannot pick and choose our obligations under international law. If we support the rules-based international order, if we support the treaties and mechanisms that have attempted to secure peace and security, or at least progress towards peace and security, and the protection of the environment since the second world war, we have to support and accept those institutions and agreements in their entirety. By all means make a case for reform, but that has to be done through the order that exists in the first place. That is particularly true if we expect and request other countries to do the same, so it also has to be true of our approach to the global ocean treaty.
The Government have a responsibility to current and future generations to do all they can to protect the marine environment. Water is life, as my friends in Malawi often say, and the waters that make up the seas are home to life in abundance. They are part of a global ecosystem on which we all depend, in a fragile balance that we damage or destroy at great peril to all of us. The ocean treaty has been hard won, and now the challenge is for the UK Government to play their part to ensure that the treaty delivers on its ambitions.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I genuinely express thanks to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for this debate. I recognise that it is not the first time that he has pursued this interest in the ocean treaty. I am really grateful that he has brought about the debate today.
I tip my hat once again to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who, despite no longer being in the Front-Bench position, has continued to advocate for environmental issues from the Back Benches. I completely respect that. And I love, I have to say, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) being “in violent agreement” in a debate. It is not often that we are in violent agreement, but I quite like that as a phrase—so long live our violent agreement.
I always enjoy the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). They are always very informed, and I know how passionately he cares about the environment. We share an interest in whale poo, so that is really good. That was going to be in my speech a bit later on; I think it is fascinating.
Why does the treaty matter? The treaty stopping any individual country having a veto is important, because not all countries will agree all the time. One country being able to have a veto would always delay things. That is an important point to highlight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), an excellent Member of Parliament, has been listening to his constituents who come here to speak about this subject. He has been hearing about it, and he pointed out the rarity of agreement among us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) highlighted the progress on how we view the oceans and how it has changed for the better over the years. There is still further to go. I liked the phrase he used at the end, about an “attitude of mind” with the ocean. He made the good point that just because it is out of sight, it should not be out of mind. That is worth bearing in mind.
The ocean is beautiful. Perhaps it is the former teacher in me, thinking that every day is a school day—but every day is, when it comes to the ocean. We learn more and more, and we understand more and more. The more we learn about it, the more the mind is blown by how important literally everything is.
In my constituency is a place called the Deep, a big aquarium. It is amazing. When I was younger and my children were little—one was a baby and one a toddler— I got a year’s pass, very good value, for us all to go as a family. Every week, my toddler used to say, “Go to the Deep! Go to the Deep!” and I would be like, “Go and push them around the Deep—again?” At lunchtime, if I timed it well, we could go into the dark area—the deep sea area—and the baby would fall asleep, so I could eat with the toddler before the baby woke. I spent many a day in the Deep, learning about and understanding the ocean.
Oceans regulate everything, including our climate. They support biodiversity and provide food and livelihoods, as has been pointed out, but less than 1% of the high seas is currently protected. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, without the high seas shielding us, we would already be in a full-scale climate breakdown. We should be preserving critical habitats, such as mangroves, seagrass beds and coral reefs, which act as carbon sinks. Protecting those vast stores of blue carbon is critical to slowing climate change. The plants and animal life of the oceans fix carbon. I loved that about the whale poo. It is amazing. If, however, we were able to increase the plankton population by just 1%, it would have the same climate benefit as about 2 billion mature trees. As I say, every day is a school day—I get very excited about all this.
It is time to stop presenting the protection of the natural world as a trade-off between the needs of people and the needs of nature. There is no trade-off. Protecting our oceans and the life they contain protects us. But do not take just my word for it. The UN global oceans treaty is historic. It is one of the most significant steps forward in international conservation in human history—something we can all be incredibly proud of. Yesterday, the European Union ratified it, and we should be proud that the UK was one of the first countries to sign the treaty when it opened for signatures at the UN last year. Since then, however, progress has stalled, and the legislation has been pushed back—I am hearing until after the general election, apparently.
Please hold in the forefront of your minds, the incredible prize that is in front of us: the opportunity to protect life on our planet. It is not often that we get the chance to look at that. Just imagine how great, how good, for our international reputation it would be if the UK were leading from the front, championing the new high seas ocean sanctuary proposals. Imagine the signal we could send the global community of the UK as a real and genuine world leader, with a commitment to tackling climate change, biodiversity and global ocean protection. Sadly, however, that is just my imagination, and the reality brings us much further down to earth.
The fact is that the Government have simply failed to devote the resources needed to this legislation and to get the job done. In the ministerial letter to the hon. Member for Torbay on 28 March, Lord Benyon claimed that the private Member’s Bill would,
“slow down the necessary work towards ratification by diverting resources”.
I find it difficult to believe, or understand, how that could be a serious problem in a well-resourced project.
Will the Minister therefore update us on the progress of the legislation and any future timetable? To meet the goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030—as has been mentioned—the work to identify and collaborate on proposals for ocean sanctuaries must begin now, so will the Minister confirm that that identification has begun and tell us which countries we are collaborating with?
Another interesting fact: the Sargasso sea—as has also been mentioned a few times—is nicknamed the golden floating rainforest. Wow! The golden floating rainforest is home to more than 145 invertebrate species and more than 127 species of fish. Will that site be identified as a priority by the UK, as it is surrounded by UK overseas territories? Our global British family in the UK overseas territories contains 94% of all the unique species that the UK is responsible for. These huge marine areas throughout the world’s oceans are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet their contribution to it is negligible. That is understood by our friends in the overseas territories and recognised by schemes such as the blue belt programme, which have been mentioned. From Helena to Cayman, Bermuda to Anguilla, the Falklands to the British Virgin Islands, these efforts underpin the reasons why this debate is crucial. Does the Minister share my ambition for the UK to be ready to present at the treaty’s first conference of the parties, COP1? If so, does she agree that identification of, and collaboration on, marine protected areas is urgent?
The UK has every incentive to lead the way on the ratification of the treaty and show global leadership. Wouldn’t it be good for the UK to be leading the world in a positive way, to make the news for positive reasons and to show that it actually follows and agrees with international law? Wouldn’t that make a wonderful headline?
Kevin Foster
I am very much enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech, and there is very little of it that I disagree with. Obviously, I hope that her party will not be the one making this decision. However, can she be clear, given that there is an impending general election, that she would, first and at the very least, meet the target for ratification that the Government set out and, secondly, ensure that the legislation will be in the first King’s Speech?
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to say that we absolutely would meet that target. We would signal to the international community that we take seriously our responsibility for tackling the interconnected climate and nature emergencies by prioritising the treaty. If we do not prioritise and pass the treaty, we would simply not be doing that. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be in a new Labour Government and ratify this treaty? I almost feel sorry for the people opposite who have put most of the work in beforehand. Instead, we have seen what we always see with this chaotic Government: dither, delay, excuses.
I have a simple message to all those who care about protecting the oceans and to all those who know that protecting the oceans protects us: if the Government will not ratify this treaty, then a future Labour Government will, and we will be the leaders that this treaty needs and deserves.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this important debate and for the contributions from other hon. Members. I have learned much, as I think many of us have, about our oceans, biodiversity and the processing of nutrients.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), said, we will all take away useful information; as ever, today is a learning day. The hon. Lady’s children sound like future champions of ocean life and biodiversity, thanks to their mother’s very cunning ways of spending their afternoons. That gives us all hope that the next generation will also be passionate about this important part of our planetary biodiversity.
It is immensely encouraging to hear so many colleagues so engaged, and I thank them all for their attendance. This is a policy area that we are continuing to lean in on; the Government have led on it throughout our governing time. That includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who provided incredible leadership during her time leading DEFRA, and colleagues in the other place, including Lord Benyon, who holds this portfolio within the FCDO. He has a joint portfolio across DEFRA to ensure that the Government’s progress on this can be as effective as possible.
I will address some of the specific points made. As ever, if I miss one, I apologise in advance—we will ensure that we write to Members. I will make and unpack three points during the course of my remarks. First, to be clear, the UK is supportive of the BBNJ agreement. It is really important to set that out in full. Secondly, the BBNJ agreement will help us to protect two thirds of the global ocean that lies beyond any national jurisdictions by establishing marine protected areas in the high seas. That is vital to protecting and restoring the health of our ever warmer and more acidic oceans as they bear the brunt of emissions. It will support the worldwide web of marine life, including those critical commercial stocks that a number of colleagues have mentioned. That is an important and challenging area of policy globally.
As is absolutely right, the UK, led by this Government, has been hard at work behind the scenes over the last 14 years to secure the agreement, with many people putting a huge amount of work in. Our aim is for the UK to be able to implement and ratify the BBNJ agreement in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025. That is an ambitious target date, which is, importantly, shared by like-minded countries. We are cracking on with the work needed to achieve that, as well as helping others to do similarly. It is important that we get the implementation right.
By 2030, our vision is for the ocean to be governed effectively, clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse—linking resilient and prosperous coastal communities around the world, and supporting sustainable economic growth for the UK, our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The UK’s commitment to upholding the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS, as it is known—in all its dimensions is at the heart of achieving that. For 40 years and more, UNCLOS has effectively been the global ocean treaty, and the BBNJ agreement will sit under it.
As colleagues have highlighted, here in the UK we have cross-party and—it is lovely to hear it raised—constituents’ support for powers to establish new high seas marine protected areas. The powers are one facet of an agreement that includes a number of provisions that will be important, especially to developing countries, and that we are working equally hard to negotiate in three particular areas: marine genetic resources—ensuring that the benefits are shared fairly and equitably—environmental impact assessments, and building capacity and transferring technology.
Barry Gardiner
I am listening carefully to the Minister. Can she explain exactly how we will support countries to get that access and to have the capacity themselves? What financial and other resources will we make available?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will ensure that the team gets back to Members to set out the road map that is in place already, on which there is a great deal of work. It covers a very broad range of areas, as I have set out.
Trying to bring all the provisions together has made securing the agreement complicated, to say the least. I pay tribute to our indefatigable UK negotiating team, some of whom are here, as well as the National Oceanography Centre team, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, and which was a crucial part of the UK delegation. As we have mentioned, our team played an instrumental role in getting the whole treaty across the line. It is an achievement in which the UK and so many should take real pride. The result is a major victory for ocean protection and multilateral diplomacy that will underpin UNCLOS and help us to make good on shared global commitments to manage the whole ocean sustainably, protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment —and halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030, which is our global mission.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned, the UK was one of the very first to sign the agreement, on 20 September 2023, the day it opened for signature at the UN—we were at the front of the queue. We want to ensure that it comes into force as quickly as possible. Globally, that will take several steps to achieve: 60 states or regional economic integration organisations must become party to the agreement, and 120 days must pass after deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification before it can enter into force. The first conference of the parties will then be able to meet within a year of that date. The agreement has gained 89 signatures and four ratifications so far. Realistically, we expect that the first conference should be able to meet in late 2026. We intend for the UK to be there as a party to the agreement, and we are making timely progress towards that end, as well as, importantly, helping others to do similarly.
As hon. Members would expect, here at home we have hit the ground running, having been right at the front of the queue in putting our names to the agreement. We are making good progress, in line with the process for the scrutiny of treaties by Parliament, which is 21 sitting days under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We began the process of parliamentary scrutiny the first sitting day after signature.
We are working on the clear legislative framework needed to implement the agreement, including substantive provisions in primary legislation, and ensuring that stake- holders can comply with what are complex new obligations. That includes scientists and industry, reaching across the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, agricultural-technology, cosmetic and chemical sectors—as I say, it is a broad range of interlocutors whom we are working with—and all those required to provide environmental impact assessments both in areas beyond national jurisdiction and, indeed, those within UK waters.
I am pleased to report that work to develop the policy on implementation is almost complete. As I set out, our aim is to implement and ratify the agreement in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025—that is, next year. It is an ambitious target date, but it is shared by other forward-leading countries, and it will ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of ocean protection. We will provide updates on our progress to both Houses before summer recess and again when Parliament resumes, as well as continuing to work with the devolved Administrations on what they will also need to do. We intend for the UK to play an active part in that first conference of the parties, including in the UN’s preparatory commission.
Kevin Foster
The Minister says that the work on the legislative framework is almost complete. When does she expect it to be complete, and what timeline has she set for that?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend asks me questions that I am afraid I do not have the answer to, but to my earlier point, I will ensure that Lord Benyon contacts him to give him the latest update on that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted that the UK’s blue belt now protects an area of ocean larger than India around the UK’s overseas territories, so of course we welcome the extension of the BBNJ agreement to them and to the Crown dependencies, recognising that they have their own domestic considerations and, indeed, procedures to undertake.
We want to see the BBNJ agreement implemented and ratified by as many countries as possible as soon as possible, so we are supporting the efforts of developing countries, including some of the smaller Commonwealth countries, and working through the Commonwealth secretariat for small island developing states. There is particular interest from some Pacific and Caribbean islands and states. We are scoping out new marine protected areas that could be proposed once the agreement is in force. Of course, all that sits alongside our wider work to champion the ocean, both at home and right across the world.
Emma Hardy
It is encouraging to know that the Minister is scoping out some areas. Could she give more detail either now or later in writing on where these areas we are looking at are?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to ask Lord Benyon to update the hon. Lady on that question. Together we can make good on the promise of this landmark international agreement. Indeed, it matters greatly that we do—not only for the health of our oceans and the good of all those who depend on them, as many colleagues have set out today, but for confidence in the UK’s continuing leadership on the world stage in this important area.
I thank all Members for their interventions, passion and commitment to keeping the Government’s feet to the fire on getting this legislation in place as soon as possible, as well as raising those important wider issues around ocean pollution and plastics. I noted that the Adjournment debate in the main Chamber was also on that subject. That tells us a great deal about the focus that colleagues and, indeed, their constituents have on this important area.
On the reduction in plastics pollution, the UK have led the world on legislation to change and reduce unnecessary plastic usage. I just got back this morning from Hong Kong where I was in conversation with an enormous number of people who all raised how the UK had managed to get consumers to be part of this legislative change; they are trying to bring in new legislation themselves on this issue. It was interesting to hear directly that what we have been doing is being watched, admired and learned from. That should give us all confidence that the continuing lead we have on this issue is important, and we must all champion it across the piece.
In conclusion, I confirm that the UK’s full commitment to the BBNJ agreement is clear. Its vital role in protecting the areas of the high seas as part of the global effort to help nature to recover, and indeed to help people to prosper across the planet for generations to come, is critical. Our commitment to making progress on the UK legislation so that we can ratify the BBNJ agreement and implement it effectively here at home is in full swing. We will both get that done here and encourage others to do so as quickly as possible.
Kevin Foster
It has been a pleasure to sit through this debate. I repeat the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): we have all been pretty much in violent agreement about the outcome we all wish to see, namely the prompt ratification of the treaty by the UK. However, I have to say that I did not realise quite how much whale poo would form a part of our discussion.
It is also right that we have referred to the issues around plastic. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in particular for his point on that.
It is welcome to hear some of the comments made by both sides of the House, particularly given the necessity of taking our legislation through either just before a general election, as I had hoped, or just after. That will help to protect us against some of the vagaries of politics that inevitably come in an election year. That said, I hope we can get on with the work of getting the proposed legal framework out there. I would like to hear a timeframe so that we can actually get on. We should not be looking to meet the bar of others; we should be looking to be one of the leading nations in getting the treaty ratified so that we can get on with the vital work of protecting our oceans.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty.
Written Statements
Deposit Return Scheme for Drinks Containers
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
Today, I am updating colleagues on our progress to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers. The Government are committed to delivering a world-class scheme and will bring forth legislation to progress this as soon as possible when parliamentary time allows.
DRS is a well-established international model, with nearly 60 schemes due to be in operation by the end of 2024. A redeemable deposit is placed on single-use drinks containers, which is refunded upon return of the empty container. The deposit provides a financial incentive for consumers to return empty drinks containers for recycling. We will continue to prioritise reducing inflation and supporting families with the cost of living as the DRS is taken forward and we will consider the appointed deposit management organisation’s approach to setting deposit levels. The DRS will boost recycling levels, reduce the littering of in-scope drinks containers, and turbocharge our transition to a circular economy.
The UK Government have consulted twice—alongside the Northern Ireland Executive and Welsh Government —on the introduction of a DRS: first in 2019 and again in 2021, with the latest Government response published in January 2023. Since then, my officials have been working closely with their devolved Administration counterparts on the steps needed to achieve interoperable schemes that work across the UK.
Extensive engagement has been undertaken to explore various proposals and identify compromises. Together, we have successfully reached alignment on: joint registration and reporting, labelling, reciprocal returns, deposit level, minimum container size, and low volume sales.
There is an outstanding issue regarding the scope of materials in DRS. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) in Northern Ireland and the UK Government agree that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles, steel and aluminium cans will be included in our DRS, and that glass drink containers will be excluded when the scheme launches. The Scottish Government have agreed to commence DRS in Scotland on this same basis to ensure the schemes move forward.
It remains my view that including glass in any UK DRS will create undue complexity for the drinks industry and it increases storage and handling costs for retailers. Glass containers are heavy and fragile, making them more difficult for consumers to return and receive the deposit they have paid, potentially forcing up the cost of their shopping. Moreover, glass is littered less: the Keep Britain Tidy litter composition analysis of 2020 presented that 55% of litter was from PET plastic and metal drinks containers, compared to just 4% from glass drinks containers. We want to work with industry on an ambitious re-use and refill initiative and will provide further detail shortly.
The Welsh Government are taking a different approach: they intend to include glass when their scheme launches. We will continue our conversations with Welsh Government, but if their position does not change, we will reiterate the duty to protect the UK internal market and facilitate free trade within the UK so that businesses can continue trading unhindered across the UK and ensure better prices and choice for consumers, particularly in the context of the current cost of living pressures. There are no plans to exclude any DRS from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIM) now that there is maximum possible alignment and interoperability across the UK to protect businesses and consumers. However, any application for an exclusion would be considered on the evidence presented.
As it stands, when our DRS launches, businesses and consumers will be protected by the market access principles of the UKIM Act for the sale of drinks in glass bottles across the UK. In plain terms, this means that drinks in glass containers made or imported into England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be subject to a Welsh DRS which includes glass.
As stated in the consultation response published in January 2023, launching a DRS in October 2025 was a stretching target date. Following extensive engagement with industry, who will be responsible for delivering the DRS, and a review of international approaches to DRS implementation, additional time will be needed to efficiently and effectively roll out the schemes across the UK. With the agreement of Ministerial colleagues across the devolved Administrations, the DRS will go live in October 2027. Until then, we are committed to engaging with industry and working with a deposit management organisation candidate(s) to finalise the next steps towards DRS implementation.
We will continue to work with industry, our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, and other relevant stakeholders to deliver a DRS across the UK that works for businesses, communities, and consumers.
[HCWS427]
UK-Rwanda Partnership
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
The Government today laid a statutory statement, in line with section 20(8) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, confirming its intention to ratify the UK-Rwanda agreement on an asylum partnership (the treaty). The treaty will be ratified today.
The UK Government and the Government of Rwanda have worked together to ensure that all the necessary measures are in place, such that the parties are able to meet their obligations as and when they arise, to proceed with ratification of the treaty.
This work has included:
The passing by the Government of Rwanda of their own domestic legislation to ratify the treaty and to amend their asylum system to reflect new case-working and appeals processes. These measures will help address the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the effectiveness of the Rwandan asylum system and will help build capacity and capability.
Identifying a Rwandan and a Commonwealth co-president to head up the new appeals body, which was introduced under the treaty to address the points raised by the Supreme Court about the independence of the Rwandan judiciary, and to ensure that the final determination of a refugee claim is independent and objective. The co-presidents will work together to ensure the selection of appropriate judges, on the drafting of procedural rules, and on the delivery of effective and appropriate training for new judges.
Progressing the identification of an independent expert to the new appeal body, and of potential experts to support the functioning of casework and to ensure high-quality decision-making.
Creating an independent monitoring committee, which will monitor the operation of the treaty.
Commencing the procurement exercise for the monitoring committee support team, which will be in place prior to a first flight.
Implementing an initial system to monitor the location of relocated individuals, with their consent, to ensure they are safe and that refoulement contrary to the terms of the treaty has not occurred.
Developing and agreeing with the Government of Rwanda a range of standard operating procedures detailing how the provisions under the treaty will be delivered in practice. This includes processes for safeguarding vulnerable individuals and accessing the comprehensive medical support package available to relocated individuals.
I am grateful to the Government of Rwanda for their work in implementing the treaty to ensure those relocated will be offered safety and security.
In line with our obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, the treaty, which is binding in international law, addresses the Supreme Court’s conclusions by making it clear that refoulement will not occur. The treaty ensures that those relocated: will be safe; will be fully supported for five years; will not be removed to a third country; and will have their asylum claims processed fairly; and that those who are not granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will get equivalent treatment and will be granted permanent residence.
The assurances in the treaty, alongside ongoing work to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system and operational readiness since the evidential position considered by the courts in summer 2022, are sufficient to conclude that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals. In passing the Safety of Rwanda Act, which received Royal Assent today, 25 April 2024, Parliament has reached the same conclusion.
The Act will come into force upon the ratification of the treaty. Decision makers will be required to treat Rwanda as a generally safe country for the purpose of relocating individuals. The Act does allow decision makers and the courts and tribunals to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual person due to their particular circumstances, despite the safeguards in the treaty, if there is compelling evidence to that effect. But an individual claim is not permitted on grounds that Rwanda may remove the person to another state in contravention of any of its international obligations. The treaty has removed this risk.
Parliament is sovereign. Individuals with no legal right to be in the UK should no longer be able to frustrate removal through spurious legal challenges.
Despite the progress we have made in tackling illegal migration, we must go further. To fully solve this problem, we need a strong deterrent. Only by removing the prospect that illegal migrants can settle in the UK can we control our borders and save lives at sea. That is why it is essential we relocate illegal migrants to Rwanda, rather than letting them stay in the UK.
The sooner we can bring into effect our partnership with Rwanda, the faster we can disrupt the business model of smuggling gangs and demonstrate that making dangerous, illegal, and unnecessary journeys to the UK is not a viable means of entry to the UK asylum system.
When people know that if they come here illegally, they will not get to stay, they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats. Illegal migration destroys lives, costs British taxpayers billions of pounds, and is unfair to those who follow the rules. Passing the Safety of Rwanda Act and ratifying the treaty with Rwanda will help us put a stop to this.
[HCWS430]
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
This Government are fiercely proud of the success of Britain’s aviation industry, and are committed to ensuring it continues to grow and succeed in future. Decarbonisation is critical to that future, and today we are setting out another key step in delivering that by publishing the full policy detail of a world leading sustainable aviation fuel mandate which will deliver 10% of all jet fuel in flights taking off from the UK from sustainable sources by 2030 and 22% by 2040. It will be one of the first in the world to be put into law and, subject to parliamentary approval, will be implemented from 1 January 2025, once again putting the UK at the forefront of decarbonising air travel. We are also today launching a consultation on an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism to support investment in the UK’s SAF production industry.
Today’s announcements are good for aviation, the environment and for the UK overall, with the SAF industry estimated to add over £1.8 billion to the economy and create over 10,000 jobs across the country. The SAF mandate will drive demand for SAF in the UK, secure emission reductions and provide investor confidence. A revenue certainty mechanism will also incentivise investment in UK SAF production, helping to drive growth across the UK, secure the supply of British-made SAF, and maintain the UK’s position as a global leader.
This is part of the Government’s plan to deliver on our net zero commitments while ensuring we take a pragmatic and proportionate approach which minimises unnecessary burdens on the public.
SAF mandate
Following extensive consultations with the industry the SAF mandate will deliver emission reductions of 2.7 MtCO2e in 2030 and 6.3 MtCO2e in 2040 and create high value jobs, particularly in the production of the most advanced fuel types. The Government will lay secondary legislation this summer so that the scheme comes into effect on 1 January 2025.
The Government first consulted on the introduction of a SAF mandate in July 2022 and subsequently confirmed it would be introduced from 2025. This suggested at least 10% of UK aviation fuel should come from sustainable sources by 2030 and included key elements, such as robust sustainability criteria, to ensure fuels drive genuine benefits and sub-targets to incentivise diverse SAF production pathways. A second consultation, in March 2023, focused on the detail of the scheme, key policy parameters and design of the SAF mandate. Today, the Government are confirming a trajectory for the mandate from 2025 up to 2040 that is ambitious but realistic. The mandate will start in 2025 at 2% of total UK jet fuel demand, increase on a linear basis to 10% in 2030 and then to 22% in 2040. From 2040, the obligation will remain at 22% until there is greater certainty regarding SAF supply.
The mandate will also include a cap on the feedstocks that are used in the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids process. HEFA is currently the only commercially available SAF; however, it is dependent on limited feedstocks that cannot deliver our long-term SAF goals alone. HEFA SAF has an important part to play in the 2020s alongside the commercial development of advanced fuels that are less dependent on limited feedstocks. Today’s publication confirms that HEFA supply will not be limited under the mandate trajectory for the first two years, before falling to 71% of the total in 2030 and 33% in 2040. This will allow SAF demand to be met while incentivising the development of new SAF technologies. The UK is already producing HEFA SAF and we welcome the further development of this UK industry alongside more advanced SAF technologies. We recognise that there is a broader global HEFA market, and therefore there is no limit on the amount of HEFA that can be produced in the UK.
To drive innovation and diversification, a separate obligation on power-to-liquid fuels will be introduced from 2028 and will reach 3.5% of total jet fuel demand in 2040. This will accelerate the development of this high-tech fuel, which is less dependent on feedstocks and can generate greater emission reductions. The mandate includes buy-out mechanisms for both the main and power-to-liquid obligations to incentivise supply while protecting consumers where suppliers are unable to secure a supply of SAF. These will be set at £4.70 and £5.00 per litre of fuel, respectively. These provide a significant incentive for fuel suppliers to supply SAF into the market rather than pay the buy-out. They also set a maximum price for the scheme, and therefore deliver emission reductions at an acceptable cost.
While we recognise SAF may be more expensive than traditional jet fuel in the immediate term, we are ensuring that decarbonisation does not come at the expense of consumers. This plan is part of our approach to ensure that the rationing of flights through “demand management” is ruled out. The plan includes a review mechanism to help manage prices and minimise the impact on ticket fares for passengers. The Government also have the power to change key limits within the mandate to block higher price rises in the case of SAF shortages—keeping the impact on consumers to a minimum.
Providing sufficient SAF is available, any increases in air fares as a result of SAF will fall well within the range of usual fluctuations in prices we see every year and the Government have plans in place to prevent any major hikes. This is part of the Government’s plan to deliver on our ambitious net zero commitments while ensuring we take a pragmatic and proportionate approach which minimises unnecessary burdens on the public.
Revenue certainty mechanism
The Government committed in September 2023 to introduce an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism for UK SAF plants and set out how it could be delivered by the end of 2026. Fulfilling our commitment in the Energy Act 2023, the launch of the consultation today demonstrates the Government’s ambition to develop a SAF industry in the UK. Such a mechanism will provide confidence in the sector and help to bring forward investment in UK SAF plants.
The consultation sets out four options that have been developed alongside stakeholders, through forums such as the Jet Zero Council. It provides a detailed assessment of these four options, looking at a range of factors from how quickly a mechanism could be delivered, to the scale of investment it is likely to bring forward. Views from stakeholders across the whole supply chain will be critical to the next phase of work and we welcome responses from all interested parties.
[HCWS429]
Grand Committee
Educational Trips and Exchanges
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the importance of educational trips and exchanges from England to other countries, and the measures needed to facilitate them.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest in languages as set out in the register. My first point, however, is that this is not just about languages; the importance of educational exchanges and trips abroad applies to many other areas of the curriculum, including geography, history, STEM subjects, art and sport. But I shall focus on languages in summarising why these trips are so important.
In fact, the DfE itself gave us one of the best and most thoughtful reasons why learning a language is so important in its document outlining the aims of the key stage 3 curriculum. It says:
“Learning a foreign language is a liberation from insularity and provides an opening to other cultures”.
Yet the EBacc boost has stalled and barely a month goes by without yet another university announcing cuts in its modern language degree courses, which in turn weakens the supply chain of MFL teachers. This vicious circle is damaging to our economy and to individuals and their employability, with UK businesses saying that our school leavers and graduates do not have the language skills that they need. On top of all that, there is a stark correlation between the lowest take-up of languages at GCSE and the regions with the highest unemployment and skills shortages. Levelling up would benefit enormously from a boost to language learning.
How do trips and exchanges help? The Association for Language Learning has reported a positive impact on educational outcomes. Trips and exchanges raise motivation as well as achievement, encourage development of life skills, and help students see wider perspectives and develop and international mindset. University students who have spent a year abroad are more likely to gain a first or 2.1 degree and are 23% less likely to be unemployed six months after graduation, compared to people who have not spent a year abroad as part of their course, whether they are linguists or not.
Against this background, the APPG on Modern Languages, which I co-chair, heard detailed evidence from stakeholders on the problems that they are up against. The decline is worsening fast: data show that 50% of schools are now cutting trips and exchanges, rising to 68% in deprived areas—a massive increase from last year, when it was only 21%, though that was bad enough. Much of the educational benefit is being eroded, as a result of schools moving to what we might call cultural leisure tourism, with stays in hotels rather than exchanges in schools and families. I do not suppose that your average 14 year-old staying in a hotel with 30 classmates spends much time immersed in a language or practising their spoken French or Spanish.
The reasons for this decline, as presented to the APPG by teachers are fourfold: post-Brexit paperwork for travel and border checks; the increased burden of DBS checks; the lack of, or conflicting, official guidance; and, lastly, access to opportunity and funding. The impact of all this is unsustainable pressure on staff time and increased costs for schools and families; inequity, with some families having to pay more for the same trip; and the risk of a stressful journey, with delays caused by border checks.
Based on all this evidence, the APPG submitted a six-point plan of action to the DfE. I know that the Minister has seen this plan, as well as the reply that we received from Damian Hinds, the Schools Minister. However, we think the response rather weak, and I appeal to the Minister to work with the APPG to achieve more before another whole cohort of students loses out on what should be one of the most inspiring and stimulating parts of their education.
There are six practical steps to turn things around. First, it is not just a problem for the DfE to resolve. I see the Minister sighing with relief. The problems are rooted also in the Home Office and the FCDO. We need cross-departmental leadership and a designated Minister to co-ordinate this work. I believe the Minister would have exactly the right attitude and clout for this. What is more, she could rely absolutely on active help from stakeholders across the sector. The ALL, the Association of School and College Leaders, the Association of Colleges, the British Council, the School Travel Forum, all the relevant embassies and cultural institutions and, of course, the APPG would pitch in to support her. I have also had supportive contact with ABTA, the school travel organiser, the Boarding Schools’ Association and the Sutton Trust. That is quite an alliance.
Secondly, the paperwork and costs must be reviewed. We should look at bringing back the list of travellers scheme, which allowed non-EU nationals to travel without a visa or ETIAS to EU member states. We should also explore bringing back a new group passport scheme. Where passports are necessary, we should reduce their cost; £53.50 is just too much for some families for an under-16 passport. The bilateral agreement with France on easing travel rules for educational group visits should be extended proactively by HMG to all EU countries. We should not wait to be approached, as suggested by one Home Office Minister; it is in our interests to make it happen and we should ensure that the arrangements are reciprocal. Last week, the Government—and, indeed, the Labour Party—gave very short shrift to the European Commission’s proposal for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme for 18 to 30 year-olds, saying that we now prefer to deal bilaterally. If we really are too squeamish now to deal with the EU, can we at least see some proactive bilateralism?
Thirdly, we need clear and consistent guidance to help teachers plan trips. The FCDO travel entry information must cover school groups that include both UK and non-UK nationals, while accurate information on visas—including Schengen visas—and discrepancies between the advice to schools from local authorities and that coming from the FCDO must be ironed out.
Fourthly, I turn to the burden of DBS checks, where—happily—there seems to be some welcome progress. Checks already carried out by another organisation, such as the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, are now allowed without people having to go through the whole process again. Schools are also now free to decide whether an enhanced DBS is always needed for every adult in the household. However, these changes are not yet common knowledge in schools, so more needs to be done to communicate them.
Fifthly—I know that this is a big ask, given what the Minister has said on this topic previously—the Turing scheme should be reviewed. The new, more streamlined application process has been welcomed, but schools tell us that they also want multi-year funding cycles because a single-year cycle is impractical for many schools and colleges and their international partnerships. We know from experience that reciprocity helps the future MFL teacher supply chain, which badly needs boosting.
The easiest way of doing this, of course, would be to rejoin Erasmus+ as a non-EU associate country. I implore the Minister to respond positively to the invitation earlier this month from the European Economic and Social Committee for us to enter into negotiations to rejoin Erasmus+. The reason for leaving it given by the UK representative there was that the UK’s language skills are just too poor to justify the expense, which seems to me the very reason for being in it and which would pay off in the long term.
Sixthly, and finally, our plan of action proposed a number of initiatives to incentivise participation, for example, rejoining or creating a UK version of eTwinning; promoting more energetically the quality assurance schemes to support teachers and schools, such as those offered by the School Travel Forum; the LOtC Quality Badge; and the British Council’s International School Award. I salute the Minister for being here today to reply on these matters, many of which fall outside the remit of her department, but I very much hope that she will agree to initiate the cross-departmental action needed to improve the situation I have been describing. I look forward to her response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this important debate.
It is increasingly apparent from reading the newspapers that our current generation of schoolchildren live in a challenging world. Most recent research from NHS England found that 20%
“of eight to 16-year-olds had a probable mental disorder in 2023”.
Today’s front page of the Times warns us:
“England is worst in the world for under-age drinking”.
It is therefore essential that we do everything we can to help our schoolchildren understand that there is a big world out there that offers amazing learning opportunities away from their smartphones and peer group pressure.
I will offer some examples. Households in India spend roughly double the amount of time cooking at home versus the UK. Some 58% of households in America own listed company shares, versus around 20% in the UK. The Dutch and Germans spend approximately twice the amount of time that the UK does doing physical exercise per week. Food education, financial education and physical education should be three of the four pillars of a child’s learning, so giving our children exposure to how other nationalities operate is key. Learning a language also improves brain and memory functions; it boosts creativity and self-esteem and helps with future career opportunities. Probably most importantly for these trips, social interaction with new people in a fresh environment challenges us to step outside our comfort zones, which is a foundational life skill for the future.
I had the opportunity to visit an academy recently in one of the most deprived parts of the UK. It is achieving 15% Oxbridge entrance and 65% Russell group entrance. However, one focus area that the principal flagged and that I picked up on was that a lot of these pupils did not make eye contact when engaged in a conversation. Thrown into an overseas exchange, however, they would have no choice other than to do that. By giving our schoolchildren this opportunity, they can take away the positives of the experience and build on it incrementally. There will be less pressure on schoolroom disruption and a greater desire to learn, which will rub off on fellow pupils. In later life, with a better education under their belts, there will be less pressure on the NHS and the state.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government aim to ensure that we maintain the momentum of these overseas trips and exchanges, aside from responding to requests to continue collective passports and to win agreement to replicate the list of travellers scheme.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on enabling this short debate to take place and am pleased to take part. What a pleasure it is to follow the noble Earl, Lord Effingham.
I begin by agreeing with all noble Lords who have not yet spoken, including the Minister, because the value to young people of educational trips abroad is incalculable. In my short contribution, I will emphasise the importance of musical exchanges between our country and our neighbours. There is a richness of immense value to musical exchanges, as music is a language that knows no geographical boundaries. When an orchestra goes to Italy and plays an Italian piece of music, there is no need for an interpreter.
I am more than happy to declare that my interest in this subject derives from the fact that, year after year, I spent the summers travelling in Europe with both my children, who were members of the Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra, conducted then by the redoubtable Adrian Brown. My daughter rose to become the leader of the orchestra and my son was the leader of the cellists, and we went to every country you could consider in Europe. For many, if not most—we are talking about schoolchildren—it was their first experience of being abroad, and certainly their first experience apart from their parents. The benefit of the exchange that took place was beyond measure.
We are now a third country and treated accordingly. The ease of freedom of movement has disappeared. The Independent Society of Musicians talks about
“the enormously damaging impact that Brexit … had on musicians’ ability to tour in Europe”
and has emphasised
“the need to resolve post-Brexit mobility issues for touring creatives”.
I have previously referred to the problems for youth orchestras. On the other hand, I am delighted to bring to your Lordships’ attention the fact that, eventually, some progress is being made. The Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra has now restarted its yearly summer tours. Last year, it went to Ravenna and this year it is planning to take 80 young musicians to the Czech Republic. Another youth orchestra, the Kimichi Symphony Orchestra, is planning to visit Kraków in October this year, which is a significant date.
However, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that some problems still make life difficult, such as the sheer time it can take to cross the border into France. Every single person has to get out of the bus and have their passport stamped, and the risk is that the coach drivers who operate and drive under rules and regulations cannot carry the young people to their destination in one go. I understand that last year the orchestra reached Ravenna and it was touch and go to get there in one go, as it were. From October, the situation will get worse. The new rules the EU has introduced mean that photographs and fingerprints will need to be taken; this has been raised in your Lordships’ House.
I appreciate that the Minister replying to the debate is from the Department for Education, which is not responsible for these types of practical difficulties. But when it comes to the solution, more broadly, I think and hope it will be possible to reach an agreement with the EU that benefits young people, as referred to by the noble Baroness. On 18 April the Commission said that it wanted to open negotiations with the UK. The Vice-President of the EU said:
“The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union has hit young people … Our aim is to rebuild human bridges between young Europeans on both sides of the Channel”.
The Government have made it clear that they do not intend to go ahead with this. My own party, sadly, does not appear minded to do so at the moment. But I very much hope that that is the way the future can develop so that young people can enjoy these wonderful exchanges.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her indefatigable support for modern languages and the international relations which are so enhanced by being able to talk to people in their own language instead of just speaking English loudly.
We are very concerned that modern languages have declined in state schools such that some universities, as the noble Baroness indicated, have closed their modern language departments. The independent sector understands the importance of being able to speak to others in their own language. Overseas trips and exchanges play a vital role in encouraging young people to continue their language studies.
This is where young people discover that foreigners can be really interesting people and the different habits of those in other countries can be life-enhancing. That includes the food, alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and indeed the music, alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. If we can foster international friendships among the young, we shall go a long way to improving international relations in later life.
We very much miss being part of Erasmus, the programme which gave our young people the opportunity to travel and work with people of other nations and those from other nations the opportunity to experience life here in the UK. The Conservative Government assured us that Brexit would not mean leaving Erasmus—one of the very many broken promises of the disaster that is Brexit. The Turing scheme is better than nothing—it is global rather than having the Erasmus focus on the EU—but with fewer opportunities than Erasmus and without the reciprocal arrangements which were such a powerful tool in increasing friendship between countries. Turing funding is secure only until the end of the spending review 2024-25. What efforts are being made for us to rejoin Erasmus+ and what are the future prospects for the Turing scheme? If we are left with no prospect of educational trips, the future for our international relations looks bleak indeed.
There has been a distressing decline in overseas school trips in recent years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, indicated. The biggest decline has been among the most disadvantaged—those who could benefit most from the experiences. Previously, as has been indicated, if the pupils on a trip were all from the UK or the EU, no forms were needed, but now the complexity of visas and passports has increased markedly. Of course, many UK and foreign students do not have passports, nor do they want the expense of getting one. Surely the Government could agree some other form of identification or that a list of travellers on coaches could be adequate. Our young people need visas for 16 European countries at £70 for over-12s and £35 for six to 11 year-olds. For many disadvantaged young people who would benefit most from these visits, these costs will be more than their parents can afford. The processing time for passports has also increased greatly.
Visiting other countries can be a transformational experience, particularly for young people who have not had the chance of overseas holidays, nor of meeting foreign people. In these days of international uncertainties, the Government should do all in their power to encourage educational trips. Can the Minister say how the Government envisage improvements in international relations, and hopes for peace, without ensuring that the young meet and befriend those in other countries?
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, last month I spoke at the launch of the European Economic and Social Committee’s opinion on youth engagement, and, as my noble friend Lady Coussins has already noted, educational exchange was a key theme. The opinion represents the views of young people across Europe, and there was universal and overwhelming support for UK reintegration into Erasmus+, with 86% of young people believing that educational exchange has been negatively impacted since we left. They spoke of its benefits in broadening horizons, connecting across cultures, enhancing career prospects, personal growth, and the learning of new languages. This lent a grim irony to the comments of the UK’s deputy head of mission to the EU, who, on the same platform, justified the UK decision to leave Erasmus+ on the basis of our
“inability to speak languages very well”.
The UK Young Ambassador to the European Youth Forum, a wonderful young man named Maurizio Cuttin, spoke of a less well-recognised casualty of the exit from Erasmus+: the British Youth Council. It relied on Erasmus+ for some 40% of its budget and is now closing after 75 years. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to fill the gap left by the British Youth Council, which had such a key role in engaging young people in the process of democracy?
I sit on the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, where there is a shared appetite across all its parts—MPs, Peers and MEPs—to address youth opportunities. At its last session, it formally recommended to the Partnership Council that the UK and the EU negotiate a comprehensive and reciprocal youth mobility initiative, which would allow young people to live, work and study across our shared continent. Your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee has recommended the same, so it was briefly thrilling to hear the EU open this conversation last week and devastating to hear it closed so peremptorily by the Government and, indeed, the Opposition. A mobility programme is not a return to free movement and there are precedents: the UK has such an arrangement with Australia. Does the Minister not agree that a mobility arrangement with a block of countries on our doorstep would be far more inclusive of all young people, not just those who can afford long-distance air fares?
Young people had the least voice in the UK’s decision to leave the EU, but they will feel its impact for the longest time. When the TCA review comes around in 2026, I hope that the Government of the day will listen to what future generations want and be willing to think again.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will make a couple of points about education in Europe for British students. The first is about maximising opportunities. My 19 year-old daughter is currently doing an MA in drama in France, outside any exchange system. I have to say, her French is improving in leaps and bounds, which is a good in itself. However, it is clear from our own experience that the costs and red tape involved are now prohibitive for disadvantaged students in a way that simply did not exist before Brexit. This is not just about Turing and Erasmus; Brexit itself has made studying in Europe so much harder for British students.
Analysis by IFF Research, focusing on the first year of the Turing Scheme, found that inadequate funding and delivery problems have disproportionately impacted students with fewer resources. As the Association of Colleges points out, the lack of reciprocity means that institutions are forced to fall back on pre-existing connections, where they are able to. Erasmus is so much richer in its offer, including staff mobility. The Association of Colleges recommends that we rejoin Erasmus+ but retain Turing as a global and possibly Commonwealth scheme. Erasmus+ is expressly referred to in the EU Commission’s proposal on youth mobility. It is keen to have us back, and I hope that a future Government will act on that.
Secondly, we require more efficient Europe-wide solutions to these problems. For instance, it is clear that, for school visits, we need the reinstatement of a list-of-travellers visa scheme and collective passports, for the whole of Europe. I hope, too, that the EU Commission is not put off by the Government’s or Labour’s response to its proposal. A future Government may change their mind. Despite what the Government say, it is not free movement—more is the pity. With a single destination specified, it will not, for example, solve the problems even of young musicians touring, and Labour is right to see that as a separate issue.
The response to this scheme that intrigued me the most was that of Anand Menon, director of UK in a Changing Europe, who, as reported in the Guardian on 19 April, said that the EU is
“scared that member states will do bilateral deals, which becomes more of a threat the better the Eurosceptic parties do in the elections”.
In this context, bilateral deals become synonymous with cherry picking. I cannot therefore get too worked up about the Government’s response to the Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, regarding school visits and whether the Government would establish arrangements with other countries similar to those with France. They said, on 12 December last year:
“We would consider negotiating with other countries should they approach us with an interest in making similar arrangements”.
On its own terms, this is terribly lazy foreign policy, considering that it is our schoolchildren who will be most affected and less so European schoolchildren, who will have many other easy options to choose from: 30 other European countries, including Ireland.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Coussins, who is a tireless worker in this field, about educational trips and exchanges could not be more timely. It comes one year after your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, of which I was then a member, made some important recommendations to the Government on both these topics, and four years since Brexit dealt a hammer blow to both of them.
First, school visits: the biggest cause of the dramatic drop in visits, as assessed by the Tourism Alliance in 2023, is a requirement imposed by the Government for all students coming on such visits to have a passport and not, as in the past, for an identity card to suffice. Were schoolchildren so equipped a cause of illegal migration? Apparently not. Last March the Government rather belatedly agreed, at Prime Minister/President level, to waive the passport requirement with respect to France. At the time the agreement was reached, without any notable enthusiasm or initiative, the Government said that other EU member states could benefit from similar arrangements if they wanted to and asked for them.
Will the Minister update the Committee on the following points? What is the trend in UK-France school visits since last December, when the new arrangements rather belatedly came into force, nine months after the President and the Prime Minister agreed them? What proactive steps are the Government taking to encourage other member states to agree similar arrangements? How many and which ones have responded positively?
Then, university-level educational exchanges: the end of access to the Erasmus scheme for British students has never been properly explained, let alone justified, by the Government. They merely stated flatly that continued involvement
“did not represent value for money”.
That is not the view of a wide range of other European third countries which do participate in Erasmus. Will the Minister therefore kindly respond to the following points? Will she set out, rather than simply assert, the basis for not regarding the Erasmus scheme as value for money? Will she explain why the Welsh Government’s Taith scheme, which does contain reciprocal elements with Erasmus, is not worth considering?
Overall, this is a sorry story of self-inflicted damage and two clear disbenefits of Brexit, but it is not too late to remedy matters if action is not further delayed. In that context, the reported willingness by the EU to negotiate a youth mobility scheme—another idea put forward by your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee last year—is surely worthy of positive consideration. We really must not allow opportunities such as that to repair the damage done by Brexit to emerging generations of our citizens to slip away.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for this opportunity, but there is a tinge of sadness about it, because what I am about to say, I would probably have been able to say five, 10 or 15 years ago. That is in relation to foreign languages in general and, if I might be forgiven for focusing on one language, to German, my first language, in particular.
More than 50 years ago, Willy Brandt, the then German Chancellor, observed:
“If I am selling to you, I speak your language. If I am buying, dann müssen sie Deutsch sprechen”.
That was true then and it is still true today. However, foreign languages are about far more than just economics, although we should not underestimate that economics is essential. While English language speakers have an initial advantage, they are very often overlooked when it comes to deeper relationships, particularly in export markets: you do have to speak the language well, and there is a sense of sadness on my part that even the Foreign Office, when it recruits its diplomats, does not particularly value their language skills as part of the recruitment process.
I want to quote the German ambassador, Miguel Berger, who observed in January this year that just 2,210 students sat German A-level in 2023, a drop of 17% on the previous year and a fall of almost 48% since 2013. He called that
“a truly dramatic decline, which is deeply worrying especially as it is an ongoing trend”.
I have to say that in all my time of meeting a succession of German ambassadors, each of them starts off by saying that it is their mission to ensure that more students learn German—and by the end of their term, fewer of them do.
It is worth looking at teaching, particularly for a language such as German, which is perceived to be a difficult one. If I compare it with the way that English is taught in Germany, years 4 and 5 there would probably spend about five hours a week focusing on one language to gain confidence and the joy of it, whereas here we spend only about two hours—maybe sometimes three. I urge the Minister to focus on the amount of teaching hours that we have on one language.
The second thing worth looking at, when we compare the British Council’s latest statements on international engagement, is that there has been an increase in schools doing online digital links with schools outside the UK. In 2023, some 14% did that, so even if we cannot encourage the travel, there is that sense of curiosity and eagerness to learn. I urge the Minister to look at that and encourage digital engagement to create that curiosity and interest in learning languages.
Lord Storey (LD)
I say a huge thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate. The importance of educational trips and exchanges between England and other countries cannot be underestimated from an academic, educational, cultural or economic perspective. They are often life-changing for the pupil or student, who establishes bonds of friendship that can last a lifetime, and of course it develops our soft power.
Universities report that the amount of funding through the Turing Scheme is only a fraction of what the last combined Erasmus+ award was. As a consequence, the opportunity to undertake creative study and work abroad is limited to students on a course with a mandatory period of exchange or students who are able to fund their period abroad themselves. The former is already troubling, as we are aware of the importance of exchange, but the latter is especially detrimental to the Government’s commitment to equal opportunities. This funding shortfall is, unfortunately, not the only issue impeding equal opportunities.
In the first analysis of the Turing Scheme, fewer than half of university students felt that the funding covered half of their costs on placement. Additionally, many described worrying a lot before funding was confirmed, then struggling with day-to-day living costs while waiting for funding to come through. More students reported significant delays in response to their application to the scheme. This means that students who rely on funding to start their exchange will feel forced to drop out of it when delays in funding occur.
Although the Turing Scheme was promised to be a real game-changer for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is especially those students who will be negatively affected. I have no objections to the Turing Scheme but, in departing from the Erasmus+ funding, we ought to ensure that the Turing Scheme is equal, if not better—as of course was promised by the Government and Ministers.
The number of students coming to the UK on trips and exchanges is on course to decline for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic. We should all be concerned about this. A report by Universities UK emphasises the importance of international students to local economies throughout the UK. It states that the economic benefits associated with students coming to the UK on exchange programmes are currently being underestimated. Unlike the former Erasmus scheme, the Turing Scheme does not provide for this reciprocal funding. This cut in funding for inbound students raises concerns not just for them and local economies, but for how universities are to sustain relationships with other institutions, say, in research and other educational projects. Moreover, it begs the question whether this reflects the inclusive and welcoming image that we aim to portray as a nation.
Although the Government are clear that they do not intend to establish reciprocal arrangements, I urge them to re-evaluate that stance. Whether it is for languages, music, education, understanding or just plain old-fashioned friendship, a new Government need to work either to restore Erasmus or to develop, as was promised, a Rolls-Royce alternative.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my shock and disbelief at the events in Ysgol Dyffryn Aman yesterday. I cannot believe what happened. My thoughts are with the teachers and pupils, who now have to pick up after these terrible events, and with the emergency services that dealt with it so swiftly.
I had a long teaching career and, at Hartridge High School in Newport, a challenging demographic of prior low attainment and poverty. Our engagements with partner schools in Bayeux in France and Castellammare di Stabia in southern Italy were crucial links in widening horizons and helping the creation of positive learning environments. The regular trips and exchanges developed among our pupils and theirs gave an understanding of culture, a mutual respect for each other’s languages and traditions, and value for all pupils irrespective of attainment group. Teacher-pupil relations were strengthened in and out of class, and communications between schools, teachers, pupils and parents were enhanced through regular fundraising and cultural events. I look back on those times as some of the most pleasurable in my career.
Sadly, the picture today is in serious decline. The School Travel Forum said that there were 2,922 fewer trips in 2023 than in 2019. The Sutton Trust report said that 50% of school leaders had made cuts to trips and outings; this has doubled since 2019, representing the highest percentage increase of any budget cut in the survey.
We know that, between EU countries, school trips can move freely without individual documentation. This acts like a group travel document, and includes pupils who are not EU citizens but resident in member states. Sadly, we no longer have access to this scheme in our post-Brexit world.
Other organisations, such as the Association for Language Learning, the School Travel Forum and Tourism Alliance, have indicated that post-Brexit issues have reduced trips both to and from the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on any efforts that the Government may be making to pursue further bilateral youth mobility partnerships with our international partners.
School trips allow children to have experiences that they may not necessarily have in their lives currently. They can have a positive impact on well-being—seeing somewhere new and being with friends in a different context. Children are able to get to places that they may not otherwise experience. They also share experiences with many of their friends and not just a select few. We need a richer, broader curriculum for all students, and travel experiences both within and outside the UK have a significant role to play in this enrichment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s reflections on the tragic events in Ammanford in Carmarthenshire. I will not try to attempt her expert Welsh pronunciation. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate and thank noble Lords for their contributions.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Stuart and Lady Garden, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, focused on the importance of modern foreign languages in our curriculum. Of course, the Government absolutely agree. Rather like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I agree with everything that has been said and is about to be said. That is why we have made modern foreign languages part of the EBacc. The Committee is well aware of the recruitment challenges in that area, some of the reasons for which were explored in speeches this afternoon.
If I may, I will start with a bit of good news and reflect on some of the achievements of the Turing Scheme, which is backed by £110 million of funding for the next academic year. The scheme allows schools, colleges and universities to provide students from across the UK the chance to develop new skills, gain international experience and boost their employability by undertaking a study or work placement.
The Turing Scheme has funded tens of thousands of UK students to gain international experience. It is currently funding more than 41,000 participants—including nearly 7,000 school pupils—to undertake placements in more than 160 countries. Around 24,500, or 60%, of these opportunities are for students from disadvantaged backgrounds—something that was raised, rightly, by my noble friend Lord Effingham. An application assessment for the fourth year of the scheme, which will begin in September, is currently under way. The appetite for the scheme is clear, for the reasons that your Lordships set out, with an increasing number of applications every year that the scheme has been available; the number has risen from 412 applications across all sectors in the first year to 619 applications for the current academic year.
The Government recognise the difficulties that schools, colleges and universities have faced in recent years when it comes to organising international visits and exchanges. We are taking steps to address this. Although we are, sadly, not yet in a position to have a Minister directly responsible for this issue—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her kind words—we are working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to make sure that we have a joined-up approach; that was, I know, the spirit of the APPG’s recommendation.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, said that some institutions have found the administration of the scheme particularly cumbersome. This is something that we are aware of and have heard from stakeholders about. We will take the administration of the scheme in-house—that is, back into the department—in the next year to make sure both that we have the most streamlined experience and that the new online application process is as user-friendly as possible.
I move on to where I shall, perhaps, disappoint your Lordships. The DfE is not currently exploring the possibility of adding a reciprocal element to the Turing Scheme. We believe that it is right to use taxpayer money to prioritise international opportunities for students, learners and pupils at UK education providers over placements in the UK for students from other countries. Of course, it has always been the case that other countries and their students make their own arrangements to support study and work in the UK. We have seen a strong appetite across the globe for placements, which indicates that the Turing Scheme’s focus on outward mobility funding has not inhibited its success.
I turn now to some of specific issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, from the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s recommendations. We are grateful to the APPG on Modern Languages for its work. The noble Baroness referred to the paperwork and costs for both outgoing groups and groups coming into the UK. For incoming students, the standard visa route allows individuals to come to the UK and take part in either educational exchanges or visits with a state-funded school, be it an academy, a maintained school or an independent school. All of that is permitted activity under the Immigration Rules.
Regarding group travel paperwork, since October 2021, the EU, the EEA and Swiss nationals have required a passport to travel to the UK. We provided almost a year’s notice for this change, allowing people to plan ahead and obtain a passport if they needed to do so. On the same date, we ended the use of the list of travellers, which was in the EU scheme.
Similarly—to respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—the European Commission ceased to accept the list of travellers from the UK from January 2021, although some EU countries have since decided to allow visa-free travel for visa national children on their trips to the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about trends in trips from France, particularly following the agreement between the Prime Minister and President Macron. We do not have detailed data on that yet but, if that emerges, I will be very happy to update the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said that schools needed clear and consistent guidance. Of course, this is not something that the FCDO provides, as the noble Baroness knows, but schools should contact the Department for Education or their partner school’s travel forum to get specific information and guidance when taking school groups overseas.
I thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging the flexibilities around the use of DBS checks from other organisations. The example she gave of the Duke of Edinburgh scheme is absolutely appropriate.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—almost all noble Lords, in fact—mentioned issues about Erasmus+. The Government do not intend to negotiate resuming participation in any aspect of Erasmus+ with the EU, as a programme country; that includes e-twinning. We just do not believe that it is necessary to do that to facilitate education exchanges between the UK and the EU.
We are working beyond the Turing Scheme. We have opportunities such as our Mandarin Excellence Programme trip to China this summer, when 1,300 pupils are expected to visit the country—most, I imagine, for the very first time. We also continue to work with the British Council on the annual language trends survey, to make sure that we incorporate further school trip data and promote the work of the British Council, particularly its international school award, to all schools.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, asked about an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. We are not planning to introduce such a scheme. Free movement within the EU has ended. We have successful schemes with 13 countries, and we remain open to agreeing them with more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about proactive bilateralism. We understand the arguments for that, and, as I said, we are open to negotiating similar agreements with other countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, discussed the importance of the fact that disadvantaged children might be prevented from making long-distance trips. In the company of so many foreign language aficionados and advocates, I hesitate to say this, but the evidence suggests that, for some children from disadvantaged communities, going to a country where English is spoken is a help in seeing the wider world. It is not just about languages; it is also, as noble Lords said, about taking children out of their comfort zone and seeing the way that other communities live.
I thank the noble Baroness again for securing this debate. I will write to noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on musical exchanges. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of educational trips and will continue to work to promote them.
Baroness Bull (CB)
As we are slightly under time, can the Minister say something about the closure of the British Youth Council, particularly the resulting loss of international exchange and the young voice in the democratic process? The British Youth Council was responsible for the UK Youth Parliament.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, the responsibility for the British Youth Council relationship sits with DCMS. I met and worked with the British Youth Council many times when I was a Minister in that department. I am not aware of whether there are plans to address the gap—I do not think that the noble Baroness used the word “replace”—left by its closure. From the perspective of the DfE, I can say that having a youth voice at the centre of our policy and its development is absolutely critical.
Peaceful Protests
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Practical toolkit for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests, published on 7 March by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and how they intend to ensure that the United Kingdom aligns with United Nations standards on the use of surveillance technology at protests.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a select little bunch of Peers we are. Clearly, we all know our stuff on this.
A few years ago, I introduced what I think was the first ever debate on facial recognition here in Parliament. At that time, I recognised it as part of a wider package of changes that were on the route to dismantling parliamentary democracy here in the UK, because, when you combine facial recognition and other technologies with the draconian laws passed in the police Act, the Public Order Act and by ministerial decree, a full-scale clampdown on any form of effective protest is now possible. We are a very short step away from what happens in Russia on a regular basis as the authorities here attempt to stifle protests.
If you add to that the plans for the Government to spy on pensioners’ bank accounts, to promote their own digital currency and to link an array of biometrics to a digital ID card, we enter a very different world where the state can switch on and off your access to the basics of life. We have already given the Home Secretary the power to banish anyone with a dual passport from this country, with no right of appeal in this country, and laws that allow the police to stop named individuals attending a demonstration are in place. Is the UK state going to set up the technological infrastructure that will allow for the internal banishment of people with views the Government do not like, with the denial of privileges that we currently see as rights?
We are entering this new era of a Big Brother state at speed, and democracy will be the victim of the inevitable crash. The UK police charged with combating extremism now have similar powers to the Russian police combating extremism. I was once called a “domestic extremist” by the Met Police; it watched me for 10 years because I was clearly a threat to democracy—and it lied about it as well. The differences are dependent on which police officer interprets the law; the vigour of groups, such as Big Brother Watch, which seek to defend our rights; and the spirited independence of those lefty lawyers whom the Government complain about so often.
In Russia, more than 2,000 protesters against the war in Ukraine have been arrested or detained using facial recognition technology; they include people visited at home and questioned after a peaceful protest. This has also become standard practice by the Met Police, which trawls through video footage to identify people it wants to arrest. Most importantly, facial recognition is now used in Russia to detain those on their way to a protest after being spotted by the metro camera system. This mirrors the new laws in this country allowing the authorities to ban protesters ahead of demonstrations by issuing control orders or the new serious disruption prevention orders. The Met Police also has access to much of Transport for London’s camera network, yet the only political party to have ever pressured for constraints and safeguards to be put in place is the Green Party.
These deployments of facial recognition have turned our city streets into mass-scale police line-ups, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people subjected to biometric identity checks. Yet, eight years after UK police first rolled out this invasive technology, there has been no democratic consent to live facial recognition and biometric surveillance in Britain. No legislation to approve or ban the use of live facial recognition technology in the UK has been passed or even seriously proposed. Instead, the police operate in a grey area, enabled by a democratic deficit to use rights-invading technology with minimal oversight.
That is why we need to apply the UN standards as a minimum. Those standards make it clear that such technology should not be used to identify people participating in peaceful protest and that protests should not be used as surveillance opportunities. The UN model protocol prohibits the use of facial recognition to identify those participating in peaceful protests. These are standards designed for the likes of Russia, Zimbabwe and Uganda, but we actually cannot meet them here in the UK.
For example, Cheshire Constabulary has stated that it intends to use facial recognition technology to monitor, track and profile individuals. There are no safeguards in place to protect individuals’ rights and the right to protest. This is hardly surprising. How many times, in recent years, have we heard senior politicians and Home Secretaries saying that they believe in the right to protest—“Ah, but not for those particular protesters or protests”?
We need a charter of democratic freedoms that enshrines the right to protest and to assemble. We must never have another situation like the Sarah Everard vigil, when senior officers at New Scotland Yard decided on a clampdown against people who were coming together to remember a woman murdered by a man nicknamed the “rapist” by his colleagues in the Met, while they allowed him to remain in their ranks.
Our authoritarian Government are proposing the abolition of the existing scant oversight of facial recognition and other forms of advanced surveillance through its Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. You cannot use a system designed to protect consumer privacy to protect you from state intrusion. My big concern is that we contest each of these new laws and technologies in isolation, rather than seeing the big picture of what this Government are out to achieve. The ban on strikes, the granting of legal immunity to undercover officers who spy on campaigners, and voter suppression are all part of a rapid slide into an authoritarian country.
I hope that the next Government aim to restore the freedoms that we have lost and replace the safeguards that have been dismantled. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the shadow Minister on that. I will be pressurising the next Government to make that happen and for our freedoms to keep pace with the technologies used by the state to restrict them. Will the Government accept these UN standards?
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for calling this very important debate and I declare my interest, as recorded in the register, as chair of Big Brother Watch. I thank Madeleine Stone of Big Brother Watch for the excellent briefing that she provided parliamentarians about the UN toolkit that we are debating today. I also thank Professor Peter Fussey for his guidance; he was an important contributor to the UN toolkit.
The very worrying subject of this debate is just part of the Government’s assault on the privacy of ordinary, law-abiding citizens. Another example of the Government’s propensity to spy on us all is their smuggling into the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill a last-minute amendment enabling the Government to snoop on all our bank accounts. The pretext for this suspicionless financial snoopers’ charter is benefit fraud, for which authorities already have ample powers. This would affect every one of us, with our bank accounts being repeatedly scanned on secret criteria, set by the Government, and the banks forced to hand over unlimited amounts of information. This financial snoopers’ charter is not linked to serious crime or to any crime at all. This House must stop it in its tracks.
The trigger for this debate was last month’s publication of the UN toolkit, Human Rights Compliant Uses of Digital Technologies by Law Enforcement for the Facilitation of Peaceful Protests. Protests are important in a democracy, because they empower people who disagree with their Government’s actions. Those citizens may feel isolated and powerless, but public demonstrations show them that they are not alone and that there are thousands who agree with them. Those in power may try to ignore dissent but, if there are enough protesters, the Government will feel the need to come up with reasons why the protesters are wrong. That is when the debate begins, which is good. Protests also provide an essential voice for minority groups, who otherwise would not be heard.
I return to the UN toolkit, which challenges the UK police approach to biometric identification technologies such as facial recognition. It states very clearly:
“Facial recognition technologies and other biometric identification technologies must not be utilised to identify or track individuals peacefully participating in a protest”.
It also states that protests should not be used as a surveillance opportunity, which I and the Liberal Democrats also support. The reason given by the UN is simply that the use of this technology at protests represents a significant threat to the rights to freedom of expression and association. The inevitable “chilling effect” will mean that members of the public are less willing to engage in their right to protest, as they fear the loss of anonymity and possible reprisals, either now or in the future.
This is in line with the 2023 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that Russia’s use of facial recognition technology to identify protesters was unlawful. Since this ruling, Russia has continued to use the technology to target protesters against the war in Ukraine and those attending the funeral of the political dissident Alexei Navalny.
However, despite the UN and ECHR rulings, police forces in the UK are already using facial recognition technology to monitor and identify peaceful protesters, in a total legislative vacuum. No primary legislation or regulations cover the use or oversight of this technology, so the police are writing their own rules, with no consideration of the human rights of their targets. This is a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
Facial recognition technology is wholly intrusive. It is the equivalent of stamping a barcode on every citizen’s forehead so that they can all be identified from a distance. Less intrusive identification methods, such as using fingerprints or DNA, are heavily prescribed in their use and the retention of their data. But, scandalously, there is nothing to control the use of facial recognition technology, which poses the most serious threat to human rights of all these technologies.
Facial recognition technology was used by police in Cardiff to monitor an entirely peaceful protest. The watch-list fed into the system contained mostly individuals not wanted for any criminal activity. It was just monitoring law-abiding citizens exercising their right to peaceful protest. The Appeal Court found that South Wales Police had unlawfully deployed the technology, but that has not stopped it being used at peaceful protests.
Current police policy, which, in the absence of any legislation, they have written for themselves, covers identifying people who “may cause harm”—whatever that absurdly broad phrase means. It can be used to include just about anybody. This do-it-yourself police guidance sets no criminal threshold for the use of live facial recognition and can be used to justify any kind of use, including surveillance and identification of peaceful protesters.
Amazingly, this is only the second time that facial recognition has been debated in Parliament in the eight years since the police started trialling it. As a result, there is no democratic mandate for the use of this technology. The Science and Technology Committee called for an “immediate moratorium” on its use, which has been ignored. There has been sustained criticism of the legislative vacuum from parliamentarians, academics and rights groups. The independent review commissioned by the Met criticised the force for failing to consider the impact on human rights and relying on an inadequate legal basis. Four Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioners have found that the existing legal position is not fit for purpose.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. If he feels unable to answer them all today, will he write to me and the other speakers in this debate with his answers? How do the Government justify taking the opposite approach to that of our allies and the UN guidance, instead mimicking the Russian police state practice of using facial recognition to identify protestors at peaceful protests? Will the Government commit to complying with the UN toolkit, which prohibits using facial recognition to identify those participating in peaceful protests? How have the Government evaluated the chilling effect on peaceful protests of using facial recognition, including at the Coronation?
Furthermore, what recourse is available to citizens who are wrongly placed on the facial recognition watch-list or are misidentified by the technology? Big Brother Watch has examples of innocent people, including a 14 year-old boy being mistakenly identified as a criminal, with seriously traumatic effects, possibly lifelong. The UN model places a clear responsibility on states to ensure proper oversight of advanced surveillance technologies at protests. With the likely abolition of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner by the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, who will conduct this oversight?
Lastly, when will the Government wake up from being fast asleep at the wheel on this vital matter and legislate? We need a robust and clear domestic legal framework, governing the use of digital technologies by law enforcement that conforms to international human rights law.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I am now a non-affiliated Member of this House and that I served for 30 years as a police officer specialising in public order policing. I also declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service, and I am grateful to the Met for providing me with a briefing, and to Big Brother Watch, as I have managed to acquire its briefing.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the opportunity to debate the practical toolkit for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests, although I fear that this debate may be a little premature, as components one and three of the toolkit are yet to be published. However, we have component two, “A principle-based guidance for the human-rights compliant use of digital technologies in the context of peaceful protests”.
Looking at this document from a practical UK policing perspective, I found it somewhat confusing—and I am looking at this from a physical assembly or demonstration perspective, rather than an online one, which is included in the UN document. As Big Brother Watch points out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, just said, the guidance states that biometric surveillance should not be used
“before, during or after protests”
and
“facial recognition technologies … must not be utilised to identify or track individuals peacefully participating in a protest”.
Big Brother Watch goes on to say that:
“The use of this technology at protests represents a significant threat to the rights of freedom of expression and association, as the chilling effect will mean members of the public are less willing to engage their right to protest, as they fear loss of anonymity and reprisals both now and in the future”.
If, and only if, facial recognition is deployed to capture the images of peaceful protestors and identify them, would the fear of loss of anonymity be a reasonable one—and if, and only if, those protestors were to engage in unlawful activity, would there be a reasonable fear of reprisals, at least here in the United Kingdom? The fact is that live facial recognition as deployed by police forces in the United Kingdom does not capture and retain images but simply compares those images with a limited and specific database of individuals, which changes depending on the deployment.
For example, my understanding is that the images of those convicted of stalking-type offences in relation to members of the Royal Family may be used at events such as the Coronation, but away from sites of lawful protest. Biometric facial images are captured and compared with the event-specific database images, and if there is no match, the image is immediately and irreversibly deleted. At events such as the Coronation, where assembly was lawful, and mindful of the potential chilling effect, the Metropolitan Police confirmed in a public statement that facial recognition
“is not used to identify people who are linked to, or have been convicted of, being involved in protest activity”.
It was used to protect peaceful gatherings, not where people had peacefully gathered, by identifying individuals who present a danger in crowds, such as registered sex offenders.
If live facial recognition was used against some universal database, as are, I believe, commercially available to law enforcement organisations outside the UK—a global compilation of millions of images taken from open sources, such as Facebook and Instagram, whereby the police could identify most people at a peaceful protest—the concerns of Big Brother Watch and the UN special rapporteur would have some justification. My understanding is that this is prohibited in the United Kingdom.
Big Brother Watch says:
“Despite international warnings that the use of facial recognition in the context of protest poses a grave threat to human rights, police forces in the UK are already using the technology to monitor and identify protestors”.
However, my understanding is that police forces are not using live facial recognition technology to monitor and identify peaceful protesters but to monitor and identify those who may present a threat to peaceful protest. The example that Big Brother Watch gave of its use at Silverstone, for example, was in connection with an unlawful protest, where the lives of both the protestors and those trying to prevent them could have been put at risk; it was not deployed at a peaceful assembly.
I agree with Big Brother Watch in its assertion that there is insufficient primary legislation specifically overseeing the use of facial recognition, meaning that the police can, to some extent, write their own rules about how it is deployed. However, they are bound by data protection law and the Human Rights Act, which restrict their activities to what is necessary and proportionate to achieve their lawful objectives. In the case of peaceful protest, that is to ensure that the protest remains peaceful. Being able to identify, isolate and restrict the activities of known troublemakers is surely preferable to placing unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on the activities of the peaceful majority. Properly deployed, controlled and audited, the use of live facial recognition can enable, rather than have a chilling effect on, the right to free assembly and protest. I for one would be more likely to engage in a protest if I believed that the police were taking necessary and proportionate action to identify, isolate and prevent the attendance of those known to be intent on criminal activity.
Big Brother Watch quite rightly questions who is on the databases that the police use, and against which live facial recognition compares captured images. There is a legitimate need for the police to be audited in some way to ensure that their actions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Arguably, primary or secondary legislation is needed to ensure that the police are deploying live facial recognition in a human-rights compliant way.
However, in my opinion—based on 30 years as a police officer, 10 years as a Liberal Democrat Peer, with eight years as their Front Bench spokesperson on home affairs, and now being back in the paid employ of the Met—live facial recognition in the vicinity of protests, assemblies and elsewhere has the potential to make policing even more proportionate, better targeted and less interventionist. As with so much technology, it is not, as it seems to be portrayed by some, bad in itself—but it has the potential, without proper regulation, to be used in a non-human-rights compliant way. While that is contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, perhaps the way in which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has recently resisted calls from politicians to ban peaceful protests might give her some hope for the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing this debate. Although there are very few speakers, it is actually a very important subject. I declare my interest as a sitting magistrate. I have heard cases regarding protests and sentenced protesters on occasion.
I am speaking for the Labour Party in this debate and we, of course, support the right to peaceful protest, which has helped us in this country win so many of our historic rights. In a democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and historic rights to protest run alongside the rights of people to go about their daily lives, the right to be free from harassment or intimidation and the vital need to ensure that essential services are not disrupted. That is why this House voted against the sweeping stop-and-search powers in the Public Order Bill that risked penalising peaceful protesters and passers-by. As one of the Labour Front-Benchers on that Bill, it was disappointing that the Government failed to pay due attention to the opinion of this House when they brought those measures back in secondary legislation only months later. Will the Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact of these measures?
This debate’s title is highly focused, and it would be useful for the Minister to respond in a focused way to the UN guidance being discussed, and how it relates to the UK’s current strategy towards protests. The debate’s title reminds us that peaceful protesters worldwide face intimidation, repression and human rights violations. Britain must show that the right to peacefully protest should be fiercely protected, while the minority who seek to abuse that right are stopped from doing so.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, introduced her speech, she drew comparisons with Russia and Belarus. I have worked extensively in Russia and have visited Belarus many times, and I think her comparisons with those countries are completely absurd and alarmist. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, also made various alarmist claims, but the substance of the points he was making about the use of facial ID technology, and in particular live facial recognition technology, are indeed concerning. I was very interested to hear the fuller explanation of how the Metropolitan Police and other police forces are using this technology. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave reassurances about who is on the police database and who can have access to that database when comparisons are made between the faces on the technology and the live facial recognition. He gave the example of stalkers and a couple of other examples. I understand that the noble Lord is talking about the practice of the Met—nevertheless, this is an alarming development, and I think the Government need to be very aware of the way this is developing.
While I accused the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of being alarmist when comparing Britain to Russia, nevertheless it is the same technology that is being used. This is international technology. We are here talking about what the British Government do but, of course, that facial recognition technology is used completely internationally. There are huge databases of our faces and our characteristics being built up all over the world. We have debated the implications of that on other pieces of legislation fairly recently, and I know the Minister is aware of how that will impact on the way police forces and other agencies try to keep us safe in our own country.
To repeat myself, while I called what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said ridiculous and alarmist—I used those words very deliberately—we should be very concerned about the subject and keen to understand developments in live facial ID recognition. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are keeping the most serious eye on the way this technology is developing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate, and indeed thank all the other Peers who have spoken. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Paddick, for reminding us of the positive benefits that can accrue to law enforcement, and to keeping the public safe, from the appropriate and proportionate use of this type of technology.
I will do my very best to address all the points raised but, before I do that, I also thank Professor Peter Fussey, who reached out to me directly, which I appreciate, for making some very interesting contributions to the wider discussions on these complicated issues and specifically for his work in co-authoring the recent UN publication. As I say, I will do my utmost to address the points raised and if I fail in any of those, I will scour Hansard and, of course, write.
First, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Government absolutely recognise the gravity of these issues. They are fundamental to the functioning of our democratic process. For any democracy to be considered a truly free and liberal society, the right to protest peacefully is of course essential and there is a long-standing tradition in this country of people gathering to express their views on all manner of topics. None of us here would wish that right to be unduly diluted or curtailed.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that there is no intention to stifle protests. I am afraid that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that comparisons to Russia are absurd, alarmist and specious. That is not to say that protestors have carte blanche to behave in an unacceptable or illegal way. Their rights must be balanced against the rights of others to go about their lives free from obstruction and harassment. Should a protest contravene the law, the police have comprehensive powers to deal with activities that spread hate or deliberately raise tensions through violence or public disorder. Again, that does not negate the right to peaceful protest. The use of these powers and the management of demonstrations is generally an operational matter for the police.
Turning to the specific focus of the debate, the Government again take this opportunity to thank the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association for his recent report which detailed, as has been noted by all the speakers, a model protocol for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests. The report constitutes the first component of a three-part toolkit that he is publishing. As the Committee would expect, the Government are currently reviewing the model protocol report and will also be assessing the second and third components of the toolkit once they have been published. I can say that, at a high level, the protocol appears to set out some helpful principles; it also recognises that digital tools can enable protest, a point that was powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
The role of the police in protest is to preserve the peace, to uphold the law and to prevent the commission of offences. As noble Lords are aware, police forces in this country have operational independence and decisions on how to achieve these objectives are a matter for chief officers. The Government are committed to supporting police forces to make use of surveillance technologies to detect and deter crime, and to keep the public safe. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his examples and, obviously, for his extensive expertise, particularly as regards keeping peaceful protests just that—peaceful.
There is of course a comprehensive legal framework governing the use of surveillance technologies. This includes the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as well as national guidance and published police policies. Surveillance technologies such as CCTV, drones, facial recognition and body-worn video can be used for policing purposes only where necessary, proportionate and fair; I think that answers one of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. They cannot be used to restrict the rights of peaceful assembly and association. However, the police do have the right to monitor a protest if serious disorder is expected, in order to keep the public safe.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that these technologies are used appropriately and that safeguards are in place to ensure that. As has been stated, their use is governed by data protection, equalities and human rights laws, as well as guidance. As I have just mentioned, they can be used for a policing purpose only where necessary, proportionate and fair.
Your Lordships will be aware that there are a number of oversight bodies active in this space, which hold the police to account for their use of surveillance technologies. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates all use of personal data, and this includes police use. The police must also comply with data protection legislation, which is regulated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and with human rights and equalities legislation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for upholding equality and human rights laws. The courts also play a vital role. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services monitors and reports on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct holds the police accountable for their actions, to improve police practices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, suggested that we are abolishing the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, and indeed their powers, but that is not the case. We are transferring them to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which has expertise and experience in carrying out similar functions. The Information Commissioner’s Office already regulates these areas for all organisations, not just the police. As I said, the Biometrics Commissioner’s casework functions are being transferred. That is because we think that simpler oversight is better.
I spent some of my morning reading the Independent Report on Changes to the Functions of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Arising from the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill of 6 October 2023, by Professor Pete Fussey. Although I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, he notes that:
“It is widely accepted that current arrangements for oversight for public surveillance and biometric techniques are complex and would benefit from greater clarity”.
We may disagree about how that is done, but it is precisely what we are trying to do.
With regard to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, about citizens recourse, the ICO is open to anyone to complain, and, as it is a regulator, unlike the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, it has the power to take enforcement action. Complaints are relatively straightforward; they can be made via the website, via direct contact, via a police station or, of course, via an MP.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, suggested that in the south Wales case, the use of live facial recognition was deemed unlawful. That is not the case. The court found that South Wales Police did not fully comply with privacy, data protection and equality laws during two of their pilots, but made it clear what needed to be done to ensure compliance with the legal framework. Since then, the police have addressed those court findings. The College of Policing has issued national guidance on live facial recognition, in particular setting out the circumstances in which the police can use it and the categories of people they can look for. The National Physical Laboratory has independently tested the algorithms used by South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police and found that they were very accurate, and there were no statistically significant differences in performance based on gender or ethnicity—a point that often gets made and needs clarifying.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, implied that none of our allies is using this sort of technology. Of course, it is up to other countries to decide how to regulate the police use of technology, but it is estimated that nearly 70% of police forces globally have access to some form of facial recognition technology, so we are not alone.
In concluding, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate, and all those who spoke. It was an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, and I hope that I have provided useful context and background regarding the Government’s position. These are important issues, and I am quite sure we will return to them; this is not the last time we will talk about them. As I have set out, the Government support the police in the proportionate and fair use of surveillance technology to protect the public. We are also committed to maintaining the right to protest lawfully, while also protecting the rights of citizens to go about their lives unimpeded. We absolutely recognise the importance of striking the right balance, and we will continue approaching these questions with the seriousness and care that they deserve.
Pakistan: UK Aid
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government how UK aid is used to support minorities in Pakistan.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords participating in today’s short debate about ways in which UK development aid to Pakistan, which is rising from £41.5 million this year to an estimated £133 million next year, will be used to help the poorest of the poor in Pakistan’s minorities to climb out of destitution and caste.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as co-chair, along with Jim Shannon MP, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Pakistani Minorities, on whose behalf I am currently chairing an inquiry into the plight of brick kiln bonded labourers caught up in modern slavery—including young children—who are massively and disproportionately drawn from the country’s minorities. I have shared the draft report and preliminary recommendations with the Minister and pay tribute to the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s secretariat and advisors, notably Mr Morris Johns and Professor Javaid Rehman.
Before I say more about the horrific evidence that we have taken in the current inquiry, let me refer briefly to the other questions and recommendations that I have sent to the Minister and to which my noble friends will refer later. Some of the issues are referred to in earlier reports by the APPG and in the submissions of the APPG on Ahmadis. They include discrimination and persecution against minorities, entrenched in school textbooks; stigmatisation in schools and colleges; and primitive and dismal conditions in the so-called colonies where Christians live, which are often devoid of running water, sanitation and electricity and which I have personally visited with Marie Rimmer MP and Jim Shannon MP.
The APPG has highlighted the lack of reparations and convictions and the impunity following the violence in Punjab’s Jaranwala in 2023, when a mob rampaged and torched churches and homes. I hope that the Minister will respond to that and to the destruction of Ahmadi mosques and cemeteries; the persecution of the dead as well as the living; the violent attacks, including murder; and the denial of comparable voting rights with other citizens. We want to hear the Minister’s assessment of the abduction of Hindu and Christian girls, with forced conversions, rape and coercive marriages—all issues that British aid could, and should do more to, address. Lastly, what happens to those who try to escape and end up caged like animals in detention centres in other countries, which my noble friend Lady Cox and I have seen at first hand?
For the record, 3.72% of Pakistan’s 230 million people are from religious minority backgrounds: 1.6% are Hindus and 1.59% are Christians, some of whom converted to escape the untouchability of the caste system. Most of the Hindus are also from Dalit, or scheduled caste, backgrounds, with all the stigmatisation and discrimination to which that leads. Does the Minister agree that their plight deserves greater focus? Further, does he agree that women and girls from the religious minorities remain at the very bottom of the societal hierarchy? Has he had a chance to read Life on the Margins, a report that includes disturbing evidence of child mortality rates being higher than the national average?
In acknowledging the significant impact of the FCDO’s work on improving lives in Pakistan, it would be negligent not to point out the failure to prioritise the minorities. Our resources should be used to challenge and reform laws and policies that are used as a pretext for persecution; procedures that breed impunity; and priorities that bypass the destitute and despised minorities. In saying so, we stand with the foundational ideals of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s original constitution and, more recently, the findings of its most eminent jurists.
On 19 June 2014, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court issued an admirable landmark directive. It included the continuing failure of the state to create a federal task force to promote religious tolerance; new educational curricula to encourage religious harmony and social tolerance; the curbing of hate speech on social media; the establishment of a national council for minorities’ rights; police reform; employment opportunities; and prompt action whenever the constitutional rights of religious minorities are violated or places of worship desecrated.
UK aid programmes should be turning that 10 year- old directive into action. When did we last raise the failure to implement the directive with the Government of Pakistan, and what response did we receive?
I return to the plight of bonded labour and the preliminary findings of our inquiry. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world, with over 1 million workers in brick kilns. Although religious minorities comprise less than 5% of the total population, the percentage of religious minorities in brick kilns is often as high as 50%, especially in Punjab and Sindh, where most of the religious minorities live. This finding is corroborated by Anti-Slavery International.
UNICEF says that
“bonded labour is an abuse analogous to slavery”—
a system in which the middleman, or jamadar, arranges the advanced loan, called peshgi. The often illiterate worker must work exclusively for that employer until the loan has been paid off, including interest at high rates. It is a vicious circle, trapping workers and their families across whole generations.
According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, in one recent year an estimated 10.6 of every 1,000 people in Pakistan were in modern slavery. Theoretically, bonded labour was made illegal under Pakistan’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992. It has signed international treaties that outlaw slavery, as does its constitution. But in practice, successive Governments have lacked the political will or capacity to implement and enforce the law on bonded labour.
In evidence to our inquiry, we heard shocking stories that women and girls from minority backgrounds have been subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse—reduced to lives of servitude. Our inquiry can confirm the finding of Human Rights Watch that:
“There is a consistent pattern of sexual abuse at the brick-kilns, including rape”.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the testimony of “Sara” and other accounts from women who told us of rapes by jamadars or local police officers. They describe women and girls being sold into marriage or prostitution.
We heard of enslaved children to whom debts had been passed down from generation to generation. Recall the horrific murder of Iqbal Masih, who was taken into bonded labour at the aged of four. Having escaped and campaigned against modern slavery, he was murdered at the age of 12. He had helped 3,000 children escape bonded labour. When did we last specifically raise the plight of children with Pakistan? Children should be in school, not servitude.
Our inquiry also heard accounts of a lack of any safety equipment, no medical coverage or social protection, shortage of clean drinking water, absence of latrines and obscenely low wages. A recent ILO report highlighted the dangers that workers face, including
“exposure to toxic fumes and carbon particulates”.
We set out 10 practical recommendations to the UK and Pakistan Governments, from ethical buying standards to confiscation of assets. If time does not allow him today, perhaps the Minister will commit to responding to each of the recommendations by letter. I also hope that a Select Committee will use our report and this debate to drive this issue forward until change occurs.
No one should underestimate the consequences for those who call for change, equity and reform. In 2011, the Christian Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, and his friend, Salman Taseer, the Muslim Governor of the Punjab, spoke up for Asia Bibi and called for reforms. Both men were murdered. When did the UK last challenge Pakistan over the failure to bring the murderers of Shahbaz Bhatti to justice? If you cannot bring the killers of your Minister for Minorities to justice, is it any wonder that the two children forced to watch a lynch mob of 1,200 burn alive their parents, or minorities living in places like Jaranwala, are in despair?
I shall conclude more hopefully. Also recall that, on 11 August 1947, the great Muhammad Ali Jinnah insisted in a famous speech that:
“You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state”.
Jinnah gave the newly independent Pakistan a new flag—symbolising the country’s plurality and diversity, combining the Islamic green of its Muslim people with the white of the country’s religious minorities. The flag’s crescent represents progress, and the five-pointed star symbolises light and knowledge, objectives which Jinnah hoped would inspire and unite the nation.
Empirical research shows that the countries which enjoy the greatest prosperity and harmony are the ones that promote freedom of religion or belief for their minorities—something that the UK, Pakistan and the Commonwealth should prioritise. It is my fervent hope that our short debate will return Pakistan to that path and encourage the realisation of many of Jinnah’s unfulfilled hopes.
In ending, I pay a personal tribute to the Minister for all that he does on these issues and his wonderful generosity with time, which he has given on many occasions to address some of the issues that I have mentioned.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I agree with that last sentiment concerning the Minister. From the short time I have been in this House, I know that he spends a lot of time dealing with these issues and has a passion for them, as we do, and I thank him for that. It is of course a huge pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to thank him for bringing this important Question for Short Debate, which concentrates our focus on how UK aid is used to support minorities better in Pakistan. At the outset, it is important to say how much I welcome the increase in overseas development aid. That provides our Government with an opportunity to do more to support minorities in a practical and meaningful way.
Looking at the aid profile for the year 2023-24, it has to be acknowledged that the Government did a lot with the budget they had. Priorities listed include climate vulnerability, gender inclusion and disability inclusion—all very laudable goals. There is much I can speak about this afternoon, but I want to spend the limited time I have looking at the issue of women and girls. There is, no doubt, a lot of work to be done in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referenced the work that the APPG has been doing on the bonded labour issue and he outlined the issues surrounding women and girls on that.
I make the point, as I did in my Question for Short Debate on global Christian persecution, that women and girls from a minority faith, whether it is Christian, Ahmadi Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, face a double marginalisation or a double injustice. That could be through people trafficking, gender-based violence, kidnapping, forced marriage and/or forced conversion. It is still shocking to me that, in our world today, young girls are being groomed, trafficked into sham marriage and then forced into conversion. The international development White Paper commits the UK to develop policies that are inclusive of people marginalised for their religion and belief, and I very much welcome that, but we need to turn this commitment into positive actions.
We know that Pakistan is the third least tolerant country in the world in terms of social acceptance of religious diversity, and that cannot be ignored. In terms of the treatment of women from minority religions, a survey taken by the Punjab Bureau of Statistics on the social and economic well-being of women has shown that they have a higher than average illiteracy, and that has persisted among minority women in the province—64% as opposed to 34%. Minority community members get into a cycle of illiteracy, unemployment, poverty, and early and often forced marriages. This can be broken only by getting good education, academic or technical, for children and especially for girls. It is even more difficult for Christian students to get places to study in higher education, if they are lucky enough to have education at primary level, because the good marks which are needed are often obtained by bribes, and most Christians do not have the financial resources to deal with bribery.
Recently the Punjab Government allocated 2% of seats in universities for minority students—of course, that is to be welcomed—but that is only one province, and the other provinces have no plans to help students from minority communities in this way. There are, of course, good missionary schools and colleges which could offer quality education for minority girls, and UK aid could be used to get education for minority girls in those schools and, in doing so, lift their families out of poverty. It would be great to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans to ring-fence a percentage of aid for minorities in Pakistan and use it for education and practical training for girls. That is in line with the Government’s goals, and indeed the existing minority schools could be utilised for this purpose.
Of course, education works only if the girls are free, and it is estimated that at least 1,000 girls belonging to Christian and Hindu faiths are abducted and forcibly married and converted each year. In some cases, such forced conversions are used as a smokescreen for other serious crimes such as human trafficking, forced prostitution and child abuse. As the mother of a daughter, whose birthday is today, I cannot imagine the pain that this causes to the child and the family of the child —yet it appears that very little help is available.
It would be a very positive sign of global leadership in this area if we could use the UK aid programmes as a tool to spread education among minority girls, so that they are aware of their rights and, importantly, to train police officers and judiciary members on the laws pertaining to this issue and how to treat such cases. The Minister will be aware that the Punjab police have set up Meesaq centres in police stations in areas with a large percentage of Christians, but it is important that these centres are staffed by trained individuals. Likewise, in education it would be important to train teachers in religious tolerance and to promote a positive image of coexistence.
In closing, I commend the tireless work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the APPG for the Pakistani Minorities. The increase in aid is a wonderful opportunity to reach out to the minority communities in Pakistan and cement the UK’s leadership role in our strong belief and commitment to freedom of religion for all by taking practical steps with the aid budget such as I have laid out in relation to training and education.
Baroness Cox (CB)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton for initiating this debate on a subject of such current concern, which is not widely reported, and where the suffering of people requires an appropriate and timely response.
Some time ago I met refugees from Pakistan who fled to Thailand to escape the hardships inflicted on them in their home country. Many were living in dire and deeply disturbing conditions, in detention centres. I visited some of those refugees to witness their predicament and I was profoundly disturbed by the conditions in which they were forced to live. But the situation that had forced them to leave their homes and their homeland was so dire that they had to emigrate. Their predicaments include discrimination against, and persecution of, minorities, resulting in severe hardships in so-called colonies where violence is perpetrated against communities, including desecration of Ahmadi mosques and cemeteries, the destruction of churches, and the abduction of Hindu and Christian girls, involving forced conversions, rape and forced marriages.
There is a continuing culture, with stigmatisation of minorities even instilled into the culture by inclusion in school textbooks. The blasphemy laws continue to be used as a justification for persecution, and there is a culture of impunity. For example, no one has been brought to justice for the killing of Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities—and reference has already been made to that terrible situation.
Those who wish to see a change in the culture of prejudice and persecution recommend many fundamental changes, and I shall highlight some of them. First, they recommend the use of the percentage of official aid for minorities mainly for education and professional training projects, such as nursing for girls, in line with the Government’s MDG goals. Secondly, they recommend support for the Punjab police’s commendation policy of establishing Meesaq centres in police stations, in areas where there is a large percentage of Christians. These are staffed by minority police staff and can be used by minority members to report crimes and seek appropriate protection and/or recompense. As the competence of staff is essential, UK aid could be used to help to train the staff and maximise the use of this significant opportunity.
Thirdly, provision of funds is recommended for basic necessities such as fresh water and electricity in slums and primary schools where there is a concentration of minority members. Fourthly, they recommend the provision of funding for training teachers in religious tolerance, so that they are equipped to deliver positive images of coexistence in their schools. Fifthly, provision of funds is recommended for shelter homes for the victims of forced conversions and forced marriages, where they could be taught skills to be self-sufficient. Finally, provision of funds is recommended for labourers working in the sewers to safeguard them from deaths and injuries.
Having heard the first-hand accounts of the suffering inflicted on so many Pakistani civilians from those people themselves, I passionately hope that policies to alleviate their suffering will be recognised as matters of profound concern and measures will be taken to implement them as an urgent priority.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I am privileged to be the first of a trio of Bishops speaking in this debate.
For the past eight years or so, the diocese of Guildford has partnered with the diocese of Sialkot in the Majha region of Punjab. Sialkot is probably best known for the production of medical equipment and World Cup footballs. The diocese also includes the Mirpur district, which has strong connections to the British-Pakistani community—not least in Woking, just a few miles from where I live, which boasts the oldest purpose-built mosque in the UK. I was privileged to visit Sialkot and Mirpur in 2019; Mirpur had just suffered two devastating earthquakes. I am a vice-chair of the Pakistani Minorities APPG.
I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating the debate and for his tireless championing of freedom of religion or belief over so many years. I fully support the suggestion that religious minorities should be explicitly included in the list of marginalised communities when it comes to the provision of UK aid.
As we have heard already, there is no question that discrimination exists on all levels against religious minorities in Pakistan, most notably against the Ahmadi, Christian and Hindu communities. In part, that is due to extremists who frequently use the blasphemy laws to whip up public anger and acts of violence, with the arson attacks on dozens of churches and hundreds of homes in Jaranwala on 16 August last year a particularly egregious example. In part, it is also due to an entrenched institutional malaise despite the specific protection of religious minorities under the constitution. Aspects of that malaise are well documented; many of them have been highlighted in both the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and subsequent speeches. They include: a biased educational system; a legal code that specifically discriminates against Ahmadis; the blasphemy laws, which are so widely drawn and frequently abused; and the continuing legacy of the caste system, which frequently leaves Christians and Hindus at the bottom of the pile.
Issues of modern-day slavery have been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, especially in the huge brick-making industry and in the sewers, where—as my friend the Bishop of Sialkot, who came to lunch last Saturday, tells me—there are deaths reported almost every week due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment. Complaints about abduction, rape, forced conversion and forced marriage are frequently given short shrift in the courts. One particular concern in the diocese of Sialkot was the effective confiscation of eight church schools, which remains in place despite a subsequent ruling by the federal Government that they should be returned. That is a particular tragedy for both the Christian community and wider society given that so many of the key Muslim leaders across many aspects of Pakistani life have benefited in the past from a church school education, often giving them a wider, more tolerant perspective on those who adhere to faiths other than their own.
I could cite various examples on the other side that have sent out more hopeful and positive messages to minority religious communities in recent years. There are courageous people across Pakistan who believe in the constitutional protection of religious minorities and who seek, often very bravely, to promote that belief. I was privileged to meet some such people in my visit in 2019. However, as this is a short debate, I do not want to add to it unnecessarily. My points here are that the negative stories remind us of the continuing need for change, in which UK aid can play a significant role if carefully directed, and that the positive stories remind us that change can happen—especially when we pay proper attention to religious tolerance and the equity that flows from it.
Many of the problems for minorities emanate from the fact that they are often very poor, with illiteracy the primary cause of that poverty. Indeed, it is something of an irony that, although it was often the Christian missionary schools that began to educate many from a variety of religious backgrounds, all too often the Christian community is left behind today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, pointed out, the survey taken by the Punjabi Bureau of Statistics on the social and economic well-being of women showed that, while women’s literacy in a general population was 64%, women’s illiteracy in a minority population was also 64%, showing the extraordinary imbalance between the two groups. From those statistical foundations flow unemployment, poverty, early marriages and poor health outcomes in a cycle that can be broken only by renewed efforts to improve the educational opportunities for children, especially girls, from minority communities. The UK Government could help to advance that ambition through carefully targeted aid to the educational institutes that promote it.
In conclusion, I suggest the following. First, UK aid should include religious minorities in the list of marginalised communities within Pakistan. Secondly, I support the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that a percentage of the aid budget be set aside for minorities, using most of it on education and professional training projects, in line with the Government’s MDGs and the Pakistan Government’s allocated quotas for minority groups.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I would like to see UK aid support in Pakistan focus sharply and almost entirely on identifying and supporting minority communities, of which there are of course a number of different kinds; they include the religious—such as the Ahmadi, who suffer viciously—as well as Hindu and Christian minorities.
A high percentage of those who suffer most among the minority groups are Dalits. I want to speak mainly about the Dalits, who suffer disproportionately in every area of life because of the terrible stigma of untouchability. According to the 2017 census figures for minorities, the number of registered scheduled castes in Pakistan is 849,614, but, according to researchers and Dalit activists, their number is more likely to be in the millions. They have no representation in political life. All 10 reserved seats for non-Muslims and political parties are occupied by dominant caste Hindus and Christians. The National Assembly has never had a Dalit woman parliamentarian. Despite the fact that 33% of all women have seats in the national Parliament due to temporary special measures, few political parties nominate a Dalit woman for the reserved seats. This means that they have no voice to make their plight known.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, minority communities suffer particularly in the areas of poverty, slavery and forced labour; as I suggested, a very high percentage of those who suffer in these areas will be Dalits. They are excluded from union representation and are in widespread employment in the brick kiln and agricultural sectors. As has been mentioned, Dalits—in particular children and not least women—are working in hazardous and slave-like conditions. One aspect of this is that Dalits, particularly women, are most likely to be assigned to manual scavenging. This undignified work, without any safety equipment, exposes them to death, accidents and poor health, while 80% of sanitation work in Pakistan is carried out by minority communities—mostly Dalits—through hereditary schemes.
There is another factor: water and sanitation issues are intimately linked to the mistaken notion of purity, leading to the untouchability stigma. Sanitation workers face a risk of fatality that is 10 times higher than for workers in other sectors, while Christians, a minority in the country, are the largest community represented in the sanitation workforce.
Forced marriages and conversions are widespread, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, emphasised. I will not add further to that except to point out the figures showing that, since 2017, no official data on forced marriages and conversions was produced, though estimates vary between 300 to 1,000 per year with only 16.67% of victims aged over 18.
Since 2006, the Pakistan Parliament has provided about 6,000 projects in a national poverty reduction scheme. This progress is welcome but none of these projects target issues specifically facing Dalits, who are floundering in a vicious cycle of poverty and lack of land, which forces them into that poorly paid employment where they can be exploited. Many take on loans from their employers and are unable to pay them back. There is a high level of suicides among this community due to this distressing economic situation. Nearly 74% of Pakistan’s Dalits are illiterate, among which 90% are Dalit women, leaving no prospects for Dalit children and thus perpetuating the problem. At the heart of it all, this is reinforced by the education programme itself as school textbooks portray Dalits as inferior, which is absolutely intolerable.
I will briefly mention in addition one point already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. One of the most distressing features of Pakistan is the law on blasphemy, which carries a sentence of death and can be used in village or family disputes to target perfectly innocent victims. Among them are Mariyum Lal and Newsh Arooj, two Christian nurses recently charged with allegedly removing a sticker with Koranic verses from a hospital wall. Also unjustly imprisoned with the threat of death are Zafar Bhatti, Asif Pervaiz, Ashfaq Masih, Shagufta Kiran and Ishtiaq Masih, to mention just a few. My plea to our Government is that our aid should be directed almost entirely to these minority communities, and that real efforts be made to identify them, especially the Dalits among them.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, and I commend his tireless campaigning over the years for the UK to defend and support the rights of minorities in Pakistan. I will focus on two specific issues raised with me by members of the large Pakistani heritage community in Leicester: first, the plight of Christians forced to work as gutter cleaners with no personal protective equipment; and, secondly, the need for a small, safe and legal route for persecuted minorities to come to the UK.
Christians, who are less than 2% of the overall population, account for more than 80% of the sewerage and street-cleaning workforce in Pakistan, where hazardous conditions and a lack of workplace health and safety regulations and protective equipment cause untold preventable accidents, illnesses and deaths. The accounts of their working conditions are truly repugnant, made even more shocking by the fact that the government agencies advertise cleaning positions for Christians and other religious minorities only.
Safe and sustainable economic development and inclusion of minority groups go hand in hand; the Government’s approach to development in Pakistan must recognise that. I, too, warmly welcome the increase in the aid budget for Pakistan, as others have. Will the Government commit to targeting aid to the poorest of the poor and, in particular, the provision of protective equipment to industries where minority populations comprise the majority of the workforce? Such provision would provide an important symbol of the Government’s priorities and, moreover, save lives.
My second point relates to the provision of a small, safe and legal route for persecuted minorities to come to the UK. The well-documented case of Asia Bibi is a case in point—the Canadian Government are to be applauded for their approach, as are those Muslim leaders in this country who spoke out in support of her—but there are others. I was approached by a bishop in Pakistan to ask if I might help secure asylum for one of his priests. The priest’s brother had been murdered and there was clear evidence to suggest that others in the family were at serious risk. But despite all my efforts, and indeed the intervention of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, we could not secure a visa for the priest and his family.
Would the Minister be willing to discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office the possibility of a small, safe and legal route—in the sense of 50 or so people, not the hundreds coming by other legal routes—for persecuted minorities in Pakistan to receive a welcome in this country? Given the history of this country’s involvement in the region, I dare to suggest that we have a moral duty to offer such help.
If the Minister cannot answer these two points today, I dare to hope he might be willing to write to me. First, there are many possibilities for how our aid budget might be targeted and I dare to suggest that helping the poorest of the poor must be a priority. Secondly, where the risk is simply too great, might we also be willing to offer a route to safety for those being persecuted?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow this small convocation. I join all speakers in congratulating our friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate and his determination and perseverance on these issues. However, I will briefly raise with the Minister from the FCDO a specific point, as it is the first opportunity that I have had. I think he will understand the concern among the diplomatic community about the statement yesterday by the Home Office Minister about not recognising Gaza as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I look forward to the Home Office writing to me, but the Minister has not so far today.
Returning to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, kindly shared with me the draft of his report and it makes for truly depressing reading. I share his comments on the need for our friends in the Pakistan Government to adhere to the obligations that they have signed up to under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the convention on forced labour, the ILO and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, so I endorse everything that he said.
Pakistan has been and is one of our most important development partners and, of course, a diplomatic partner too. That country has seen huge UK commitment to development over the last 20 years. It has also seen enormous progress itself, halving poverty in 25 years, but there are concerns that this progress is now in doubt, with 40% of that population—95 million people—living below the poverty line. I want to commend British officials, especially those who have been in DfID, for the work that they have done and their programmes. Over those years, UK development reach has secured clean water and sanitation for more than 2.5 million people. More than 2 million children have received a decent education as a result of British support and partnership, including more than 1 million children under five, and women and adolescent girls. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
UK support, working with our NGOs and the Pakistan Government, has brought about results, but that does not mean we take focus away from the points made in this debate. UK support in partnership with Pakistan in 2017-18 was £441 million. It went down to £77 million and is now rising again, which I support. Pakistan remains the sixth largest bilateral program for the United Kingdom, so is a very strong priority for us.
I also commend the Aawaz programme. My understanding is that, over the last decade or so, the Aawaz programme has been focusing on accountability and the inclusion of at-risk groups. This has been a £90 million programme, with the second phase of it addressing modern slavery. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that child labour, child and forced marriage, gender-based violence, and human trafficking and modern slavery remain a priority of the programmes that will be going forward.
I will use two sources for the remainder of my comments: the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s 2023 review of UK development support, including for Pakistan, and the House of Commons International Development Select Committee’s 2022 review. The ICAI report highlighted some of the concerns and difficulties in delivering some development support, because of the increased restrictions faced by and backtracking on civil society, with media restrictions and, as ICAI put it, “increasingly populist politics”. As the ICAI report highlighted
“the UK government decided to deprioritise democracy objectives”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Consolidating Democracy in Pakistan programme will be brought back, in either its previous or a revised form. Will we be reprioritising the civil society and democracy reforms that had been part of previous programmes, all of which are focused on ensuring that there is space for minorities—not only for their development but to participate in the public space?
The final element I wish to highlight is that the Select Committee and ICAI reports called for the UK to have a more systematic implementation of human rights objectives in its policies and programmes. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether, if we are increasing support, it will include support for civil and political space, human rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked, individual minority groups within the country.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. He has heard me say many times that violations of freedom of religion or belief do not happen in isolation. Countries that fail to respect religious freedom or the basic right to no belief invariably also fail to respect other basic human rights.
I start with a specific question regarding the Afghans whom we addressed in the Urgent Question Repeat last Wednesday and who are at risk of being forcibly returned by the Government of Pakistan. Last week, the Minister said that Pakistan had not made a “formal announcement” recommencing the removals, although it was talking to representatives of the Pakistani Government, and stressed the need to uphold international humanitarian commitments. What is the department doing to track developments? Have any further representations been made since the Urgent Question on 17 April?
In this debate, we heard in some detail about the experiences of Christians in Pakistan—including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, highlighted, accusations of forced conversion and forced marriage, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted, violence and attacks on places of worship. The blasphemy laws continue to be used as a pretext for persecution, with a culture of impunity.
During our debate on 25 March about the persecution of Christians, the Minister said that he had recently spoken to Pakistan’s new Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar. Can the Minister give us more detail and an update on those conversations? Has he had any further ones?
I want to focus on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted: the bonded labour sustaining a caste system that massively and disproportionately affects minorities. Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of bonded labourers in the world. According to reports, there are more than 1 million workers in brick kilns in Pakistan. Apart from brick kilns, bonded labour is most prevalent in agriculture, and the carpet-weaving and mining industries. I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting the excellent work of the APPG for Pakistani Minorities and its inquiry into the brick kiln workers; although it continues its work and has not yet reported, its draft report highlighted the failure to implement constitutional prohibitions on modern slavery and laws against bonded labour.
We need to hear from the Minister about how we are using the UK aid budget—as we have heard, it will increase to £133 million next year—for greater scrutiny and monitoring of compliance with the ILO conventions on the prevention of slave labour, on child rights and on women’s rights. Although the Government of Pakistan have passed legislation to outlaw the practice, as we have heard, implementation of the law is basically non-existent.
In their response to the Commons International Development Committee’s report in November 2022, the Government said:
“We prioritise our aid to achieve maximum impact for the people of Pakistan in line with our strategic priorities, including promoting FoRB. Our Accountability, Inclusion and Reducing Modern Slavery programme … brings together community leaders and minority representatives to promote tolerance”.
I ask the Minister: does it specifically address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton? Does it include advice to businesses in relation to the high risk of modern slavery in the brick kilns in Pakistan? Surely we should be using these programmes to support provincial labour inspectorates to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations, including support in the use of modern technology so that they are much more able. These are straightforward, simple things that we can do and which can make a huge difference.
Finally, what are we doing to support the Government of Pakistan to ensure implementation of the existing legislation? We need to do more. I remind the noble Lord that I have constantly raised the issue of working with trade unions. What are we doing with the international trade union movement and the ILO to ensure compliance with these important conventions?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for convening this debate and for his kind remarks at the conclusion of his speech. I thank my noble friend as well for what he said about my personal and professional commitment to this important agenda. I also thank my noble friend Lady Foster, for her kind comments, but while I accept this graciously, I also accept fully that the challenge we have over freedom of religion or belief around the world is immense. That is why I have been delighted, over the years, to support work on Christian persecution and the work that has been undertaken by my department in this respect. It has been recognised by many and has been transposed into policies and programmes. That said, as we have heard from all noble Lords during this brief but important debate, the challenges remain immense.
I begin by paying tribute to the strong advocacy of human rights in Pakistan, particularly for oppressed minorities, from the various all-party groups. I pay tribute particularly to Javaid Rehman, with whom I work very closely—I met him recently, albeit briefly and coincidentally—and to the work of Morris Johns. He is amazing in what he does and I join in the tributes of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, raised a number of points on prioritisations, from bonded labour, which I will come on to, to modern slavery. I was delighted to meet my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister Theresa May, at the launch of her Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. She is playing a very active role in getting that commission set up and I am sure that, as she looks at the key priorities of countries, she will be working constructively with Pakistan, a country she knows well.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, among others, raised the importance of increasing aid. When we look at the stats, almost one-third of Pakistan’s population lives in poverty, and this was exacerbated by the devastating floods in Pakistan in 2022, when 33 million people were directly impacted. I remember visiting Sindh and seeing that the most vulnerable and marginalised were the ones who suffered. Therefore I am delighted that our programme looking specifically at some of the key minority parties, which I will come on to explain, is being expanded into Sindh.
I acknowledge at the outset—as I was saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, just before the start of the debate—the need, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also acknowledged, to visit Pakistan. I think it helps. It helps the British Government in explaining some of our priorities and it provides valuable context on some of these challenges. Some of the communities that suffer, frankly, particularly those who are the most economically and socially marginalised and indeed come from a minority faith, often just accept what is being endured as the norm. We need to ensure that the investment in education is key, as my noble friend Lady Foster pointed out. That is why I am proud, over the years, of the commitment of successive Governments to 12 years of quality education for girls, but we need to ensure empowerment and access as well. The noble Baroness also talked about the situation in Thailand. I am seized of that issue, but I agree with her that, when we see what is happening there, it must have been pretty desperate for them to be in that situation.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Collins, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford referred to the issue of bonded labour in Pakistan. I welcome this report, because again it draws an important prioritisation on this issue. It is real and we need to face it. The UK is committed, I assure the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, to eradicating all forms of modern slavery and human trafficking and we work with international partners, the IOM in particular, on the important issue of modern slavery.
I will take back the issue of trade unions in Pakistan, to see what kind of work is taking place. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that it is a weak structure, but it is important that we continue to see how we can further work in co-operation with key bodies.
I will answer some immediate questions on the report. We have supported the Pakistani authorities to undertake the first child labour surveys in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab. We are now using that data to support policy formulation on child bonded labour, including the formation of child protection systems. The UK is also working very closely on the issue of modern slavery through the £26 million we have allocated to the regional child labour programme—the FCDO’s largest modern slavery programme—which helps to deliver the UK’s commitment not just in Pakistan but in Bangladesh and India.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of Afghanistan, which I have followed through. I have not yet had any further updates or announcements, but I will of course keep the noble Lord and the Grand Committee informed. We are very much seized of the situation in Afghanistan. Yesterday, I once again met the courageous Fawzia Koofi, a former vice-president of the National Assembly in Afghanistan, to understand the issue of the discrimination and marginalisation of women that continues in Afghanistan.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford highlighted the injustices, discrimination, economic exclusion and wider intolerance suffered by minority communities in Pakistan. We condemn unequivocally the desecration of religious sites and graves and the violence against individuals, and we want perpetrators to be held accountable. On a personal note, I will be courageous enough to say to all noble Lords participating in the debate that no one knows better than I about the challenges that the Ahmadi Muslim community faces.
The right reverend Prelate asked about safe and legal routes. I know that the community has worked consistently with successive Governments on the importance of those fleeing asylum because of religious persecution. While the Government have a very robust policy on immigration, as we have seen in recent months, it is important to sustain, maintain and strengthen those seeking asylum in the UK, particularly those who are persecuted simply because of their faith. Let us be frank: I have seen the benefit of those who have come to our country. When you look at a proper analysis, they make an incredible contribution to the progress of our country, and we are richer for it. I can speak with some personal experience on that front, too.
Overall, our development budget for Pakistan this year is more than tripling, as noble Lords have acknowledged. I will spend some time on the specifics that have been raised. I assure all noble Lords that we are very much seized on some of the key priorities. On the brick kilns, I visited a zig-zag kiln in Lahore in 2021 with the then high commissioner, Christian Turner. On a more amusing note, the last thing that you want to do as a suited and booted British Minister is to be put on top of a brick kiln in the middle of summer—so I know how it feels. The zig-zag technology used in Pakistan evolves the brick kiln operation into something that is a substitute for coal, will reduce emissions and will improve the welfare of brick kiln workers. For some of the workers, that is their only source of income, so we need to ensure that there is an effective transition, both for cleaner energy and to protect their rights. I have seen that in operation. The UK’s £46.5 million Aawaz accountability, inclusion and reducing modern slavery programme is working to tackle child bonded labour directly, alongside the formation of the child protection systems that noble Lords alluded to. I have already mentioned the importance of the surveys; having read the ICAI report, I will follow up on specific elements.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others who came to see me in the aftermath of the appalling mob attack against the Christian community in Jaranwala last August. I have a regular drumbeat of visits to the region to ensure that the houses are being repaired—they are—and that the places of worship are being repaired, which I am informed they are. The issue of compensation is important, and I am told that it has begun. We want to follow through on that. Indeed, when I met the Foreign Minister from the new Government of Pakistan during his recent visit to London—as well as in my first meeting by phone call with the Human Rights Minister—I prioritised the issues of minority rights and forced marriages in our conversation.
The harms of forced marriages, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, are very clear, and we want to tackle them. There is a phrase in Islam, from the Koran, “Lā ’ikrāha fi d-dīn”, which means, “There is no compulsion in religion”. We need to ensure that that is carried through. I was pleased that we were able to exercise human rights sanctions in our human rights regime on a particular individual who exercised this vulgar practice.
I am conscious of time, but I assure noble Lords, including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that I shall look specifically at the issue that he raised about Dalits. They are among the most marginalised of the marginalised, and we need to stand up and ensure that their rights are equally protected. There are a variety of other programmes, including GOAL, which looks at improving education outcomes, with a focus on minorities, and we will continue to focus on minority communities. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on that, as well as the other Bishops—indeed, we have three bishops. The buses analogy comes to mind, but I shall not use that here. Their contribution to this debate is particularly welcome; we are following through in a range of initiatives, in prioritising and ensuring that education is not in any way lost.
Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will be pleased to learn that our hate speech and disinformation programme aims to protect vulnerable groups with a focus on making digital spaces safer for women and religious minorities. In the run-up to the general election in Pakistan in February we supported voter education, and we also support, through the UK’s Magna Carta Fund, Pakistan’s National Commission for Human Rights and the Minister for Human Rights. The review of technical assistance for Pakistan’s national curriculum has also remained a vital priority, and we continue to work with the new Government in that respect. The £130 million Girls and Out of School: Action for Learning programme focuses on improving teacher quality and learner outcomes for children in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I assure my noble friend Lady Foster that we are working to ensure that much of this fund is allocated specifically to the education and protection of minorities. When I had my call with the Law Minister, Azam Nazeer Tarar, we looked specifically at freedom of religion as a key priority of our continuing relationship.
On the final point that I shall make—I shall of course follow up on any questions that I have not been able to answer—on a positive note, some progress has been made. We have seen the route for Sikh pilgrims into Pakistan being sustained and protected. We recently saw through our initiatives Pakistani Ministers attend various events, including during Easter and Eid, which involved all communities being in attendance. We continue to stress to Pakistan the importance of inclusivity, particularly for minority communities such as Christians and the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which are particularly persecuted and denied voting rights. You either claim that you are a non-Muslim, if you want to vote, or you cannot vote at all. That is fundamentally flawed and needs to be corrected.
I shall continue to work with noble Lords on these important priorities to ensure that we deliver them. I know that we are short of time. I do not know whether we are up against the time on the clock—we have three minutes, I think.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Could I just ask the Minister about the brick kiln report and the draft recommendations? Will he commit to write to those who have taken part in today’s proceedings, responding to the recommendations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I shall do so. I have read part of it—as I say, it is an active part of what we are looking at, and there is a series of work that we have been doing on brick kilns. I stress the importance of transition in a way that is practical and does not end up with people having no money at all—but I shall certainly respond formally.
I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for convening us on this important issue.
Prisons: Foreign National Offenders
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the proportion of foreign national offenders incarcerated across the prison estate.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to raise this important and timely matter—one that has been debated at some length both here and in the other place over recent months. My aim in this debate is to seek clarity and an understanding of not merely the policy direction of His Majesty’s Government, which is commendably clear, but whether they have the determination, political will, focus and resources to achieve their publicly stated objectives. This will of necessity involve me asking a number of questions of the Minister, for which I beg your Lordships’ indulgence.
At the outset, I would make the point and concede that issues relating to foreign national offenders are clearly linked to bigger economic, social and geopolitical issues in respect of immigration and displaced persons, which affect almost every country in Europe and will be a big problem for whichever party is elected to government at the general election later this year.
The most recent figures indicate that we have a foreign national offenders population of 10,423 in our prison estate—approximately 12% of the total population of more than 87,000. That is an increase of 13.6% since 2019. Each FNO costs an average of approximately £40,000 per annum to keep incarcerated and, of course, takes up valuable prison places, which, as we know, are at capacity or near capacity—notwithstanding the Government’s ambition to deliver 10,000 additional prison places by the end of next year.
However, the Government are removing significantly fewer foreign national offenders than they did even five years ago. In 2023, only 3,936 removals took place, compared to 6,437 in 2016, 6,292 in 2017 and 5,518 in 2018. In 2012, we removed more than 15,000 foreign prisoners. The Government are to be congratulated on their initiatives to address this situation—such as the May 2023 prisoner transfer agreement with Albania, which accounted for 37% of removals last year—but it prompts a wider question as to why so many Albanian criminals, who are easily the biggest cohort of FNOs in the prison estate, were admitted to the United Kingdom in the first place, especially as they were never able to exercise their rights as members of the European Union. The National Crime Agency has warned that Albanians have driven organised crime in Greater London and other parts of the UK.
On the subject of Albanians, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the German Government are quite content to derogate parts of the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent multiple vexatious and spurious claims by Albanian criminals? Why have we not done the same and saved the British taxpayer millions of pounds? In addition, the Germans are seeking to legislate with tough proposals to deport gang members with proven criminal links, even if they have no criminal convictions. The German Minister of the Interior, Nancy Faeser, has visited a number of countries, such as Morocco, Kenya, Colombia, Moldova and Uzbekistan, in order to secure potential deals to receive migrants. She stated that the package
“is necessary so that we can continue to meet our humanitarian responsibility to people we have to protect from war and terrorism”—
such as the 1.1 million refugees from Ukraine—and said:
“In order to protect the fundamental right to asylum, we have to clearly limit irregular migration”.
Why have our Government not considered similar measures, as a close neighbour and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights?
Close to a third of FNOs are citizens of an EU country, most of whom exercised their rights under the free movement directives of 2004 and 2008 and committed offences for which they were given a custodial sentence, prior to the United Kingdom formally leaving the EU in 2020. May I press the Minister to tell the Committee how many of them have been removed using the public policy, public health and public security provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which still obtain?
While much is made of bilateral prisoner transfer agreements with over 100 countries, the actual results are disappointing. Why, for instance, have we not deported any Jamaican prisoners, as I understand it, under the prisoner transfer agreement concluded nine years ago with that country, and with a sweetener of £25 million to build a new jail on the island? Why do we routinely not deport prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, our closest neighbour? Between them, the two countries represent an FNO cohort of over 1,000 prisoners. Why are Irish criminals treated as special cases?
Can the Minister confirm that any new prisoner transfer agreements will be centred on compulsory repatriation, rather than voluntary or those with the prisoners’ consent? The latter has resulted in not much more than a pitiful one prisoner a week being sent home to their own country to complete their sentence. More generally, will my noble friend update the Committee on progress in respect of existing prisoner arrangements, including the new one with the Philippines?
These are, broadly speaking, bipartisan issues. I trust that we are beyond the spectacle of Labour Members of Parliament, Peers and others who should have known better attaching their names to letters imploring the Government, as in December 2020, not to deport prolific and violent offenders, murderers, rapists and drug dealers to their own country.
I note the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order, debated last year in your Lordships’ House, which increased the early removal window in the early removals scheme from 12 to 18 months. It appears sensible and reasonable, but it has naturally prompted a number of important questions six months on. What are the costs of the policy against the benefits? What legal challenges have materialised and how many prisoners have been removed as a result of the new scope of the policy? Furthermore, what steps are being taken to advise and communicate with the victims of these crimes, who might reasonably expect criminals to be incarcerated for as long as possible, as per the decision of a court and due process?
I find it odd that we are quite content to incarcerate foreign criminals for a custodial sentence of less than 12 months and then, upon their release, allow them to claim asylum as if they are good citizens, rather than individuals who have grievously abused the hospitality of British taxpayers. How can this outdated policy, the 12 months’ cut-off for deportation, be allowed to continue without review? After all, between 2007 and 2017, 13,000 individuals were convicted of rape or sexual assault and were not sentenced to immediate custody—not 12 months, 12 weeks or 12 days. In the case of EEA citizens, the Home Office could remove them immediately on grounds of public safety. Why does it not? In the case of others, we have measures contained in the Immigration Act 2014 which can be exercised to remove foreign nationals who are “persistent offenders” or have committed offences which resulted in “serious harm”.
I raised the issue of asylum-seeker criminal convictions in the House on 8 February in the wake of the notorious Abdul Ezedi case and was told rather indignantly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that reports of religious conversions by the Church of England to assist bogus applicants were untrue and unsubstantiated. Imagine my surprise a few weeks later to learn that an announcement had been made in the General Synod that an urgent inquiry by the Church hierarchy had been commissioned to look at these same allegations. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Minister will discuss this issue with his colleagues in the Home Office, as I understand that they have undertaken to thoroughly investigate these well-sourced claims.
There is a fundamental reason we are not deporting more foreign national offenders: it is as a result of chronic and endemic mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have, according to the CPS, nearly 12,000 such individuals living in the community who should have been removed—an increase of 192% in the past 12 years.
I also ask my noble and learned friend the Minister to look favourably on the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill tabled by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in the other place, which would compel Ministers to report regularly on the nationality, visa status and asylum status of every offender convicted in England and Wales, and therefore allow the Home Office to amend its policies to respond to operational needs, as has happened in countries such as Denmark.
I will finish with some comments about the report published in June last year by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. As we know, it highlighted the endemic problem of poor data collection, information systems and management to the extent that the inspectorate could not ascertain key data on either the early removal scheme or the facilitated return scheme. The report’s most egregious example was:
“To facilitate the case sampling exercise, FNORC provided inspectors with a spreadsheet containing 558 lines of data. Following initial analysis of the information, inspectors removed 242 duplicate records”.
Half the data in this audited sample was incorrect. The report noted that:
“It is unacceptable that the department cannot produce clear and reliable data on the FNOs for whom it is responsible”.
Time is short, so I finish by saying to my noble and learned friend that I welcome the key recommendations in the report on data management, performance reporting, casework review and case ownership and management. I hope that he can update us on efforts to address these serious failings and the actions taken thus far by both his own department and the Home Office in response to the report published last year. The public expect their elected Government to fulfil the most basic function: to protect their citizens and subjects and safeguard their borders in so doing. At present, we are negligent in discharging those duties, and taxpayers rightly expect us to do all we can to face up to these problems and fix a broken and dysfunctional system.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, if a foreign national offends while being a guest in our country, we have every right to deport them, but we must not pretend that this is any more than a flea bite compared with the challenges of prison overcrowding and court backlog, which are at the heart of the crisis in our criminal justice system. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for securing this debate, and at a time that gives those of wishing to take part a goodly time to expound our views.
My interest goes back to the time between 2010 and 2017 when I was, first, Minister of State and then chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. For the first couple of years, I served with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was then Ken Clarke and served as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice with the much-missed Igor Judge as Lord Chief Justice. As a non-lawyer, I found my contact with them both extremely educational, although I probably learned more about the goings on of the east Midlands circuit than was strictly necessary. I count it a great privilege to have worked with them both.
When we came into office, we found that prison numbers had roughly doubled since Ken had been Home Secretary in the early 1980s. We sent some modest proposals over to manage prison numbers down to below the 80,000 mark. The message came back from No. 10 that our proposals were “not politically deliverable”. When some of our ideas did surface, a Labour spokesman in the Commons immediately denounced us for planning to liberate all kinds of dangerous criminals.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem that faces Governments. They are always trying to run up the down escalator with prison numbers. We all know that our prisons are full to bursting yet, on 13 March, the Government announced actions on sentencing, with those committing the most serious crimes being sentenced to 40% longer behind bars, increased sentence maximums for the worst offenders and the blocked release of offenders where it would pose an unacceptable risk to society. All this was with the promise of 10,000 new prison places by the end of next year and 20,000 new places overall. That means that, sometime within the next decade, we will see 100,000 people in our prisons.
It is against this background that we look at proposals to reduce the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. At present, they account for about 10,500 people—12% of the prison population. Each costs £40,000 or more a year.
During my time at the MoJ, we had a number of exchanges and training programmes with Balkan countries, including Albania. They provided for the development of probation and other support services that facilitated the safe repatriation of prisoners.
In the excellent briefing provided on the current state of play, it states that exceptions to the powers to deport in the Borders Act 2007 include an offender being under 18 at the time of the offence. However, cases have been drawn to my attention where offenders have been brought to England as a child, committed a serious offence under the age of 18 and faced deportation to a country when, in many cases, they do not know its language or have any knowledge of it at all. In replying, could the Minister spell out the rules for such offenders? Could we also hear whether any special programmes are available in advance of deportation, akin to those in place before domestic release had been put in place? I refer to how we have continually urged, as I know the department is trying to make sure, that the best chance of rehabilitation is to make proper plans in advance about where a prisoner will go on release, where he will live and, if possible, where he will be employed.
As has already been referred to, the UK has 110 prisoner transfer agreements with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned the one with Albania, and we also concluded one with the Philippines. Are we in negotiations with any other big countries? Is there a big gap? The noble Lord referred to Ireland—but, with a name like McNally, I understand the reasons why Ireland has exceptions, and they go back many decades. It would be interesting to know where we are going.
I find the Albanian agreement encouraging, as I went to Albania as a Minister to help with the establishment of its probation service and with the early stages of an agreement on prisoner exchange. I later discovered that the number of British prisoners in Albanian jails at that time was nil and the number of Albanian prisoners in our jails who voluntarily wanted to return to the Tirana Hilton was also nil. We do need to beef up these agreements.
The other things that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to were the early removal scheme and the facilitated return scheme. As he said, these were severely criticised by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who said that the schemes were “not being administered effectively”. The noble Lord mentioned the four-point plan that was put forward by the Chief Inspector; as the noble Lord requested, could we be updated on those key recommendations?
I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who said recently that
“a measure of this kind involves making a series of balances between the possible effects on victims and the possible effect on deterrence”.—[Official Report, 26/10/23; col. 688.]
What consultation takes place with victims of crime before the process of deportation? For us, it may be attractive to say that we are getting rid of somebody who has committed a serious crime; to the victim, that might sound like an easy release from punishment for the crime.
All in all, I enjoyed my seven years at the MoJ. Perhaps “enjoyed” is the wrong word; I certainly came away with great respect for the work that people do with prisoners and in prisons in terms of this difficult task of dealing with foreign prisoners. I hope that the raising of this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, an opportunity to assure us that the challenges of this area are well in hand.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is experienced on this subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Jackson on securing this important and relevant debate and on his many specific questions.
Many of our prisons are operating at full capacity and at great cost to the public purse. Rehabilitation, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and is a vital function of prisons—I will address mainly this subject in my contribution—is made considerably harder by overcrowding. Deporting foreign national offenders is key to the overall strategy to reduce the proportion held in our jails. However, we must also get better at reducing reoffending among foreign nationals so that those who cannot be deported do not come back in again.
Eligibility for deportation varies with sentence length and severity. There are many grounds for exception, although the ministerial Statement on 11 March laid out a far more stringent approach—particularly to short-sentenced FNOs. I make no judgment one way or another as to whether there are too many or not enough exceptions. I simply draw attention to the reasons why, according to that Statement in March, only 3,600 FNOs might be returned, leaving almost two-thirds of the 10,000 FNOs in place.
Given that many will be released back into the community, their rehabilitation is not an indulgence but an imperative. The “families and relationships” rehabilitation pathway is by far the most successful. In general, prisoners who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not. Hence, if the relationships are not criminogenic, there are significant benefits to prisoners of retaining close ties with people outside prison; for FNOs, this will often include families overseas.
When I did my two prison reviews, prison governors told me that only about half of the general prison population received family visits and that foreign national offenders’ families can be thousands of miles away. This is why I recommended giving any prisoner whose families would struggle to visit access to video-calling technology. The revolution to do this, fast-tracked by Covid, was game-changing. Is data still collected on the number of social video calls in prisons? In some prisons I have visited recently, this seems to have been deprioritised.
Encouragingly, as part of the reviews’ ongoing implementation, HMPPS now requires family services to include initiatives for prisoners who have no active family ties. However, if the mantra of my review, that the importance of relationships should be the golden thread running through all the processes of prison, is to be more than just a slogan, it requires a systemic shift in how prisons function. I see many signs that the Transforming Prisons directorate has fully taken this on board for the purposes of future training, so it is baked into planning for new builds and refurbished establishments. However, we also urgently need a more relational approach across the existing prison estate and among today’s prisoners and officers.
Just after Covid, I did an addendum to my two original reviews and emphasised the importance of peer-to-peer support programmes, especially in early days of custody. The plentiful resource of sentenced prisoners must be part of the solution. In the chaos of reception prisons, systems can be very confusing, especially for first-timers, yet understanding them is essential for settling in. Basic needs, including for family contact but also for such things as underwear, false teeth and reading glasses, often go unmet. The sense of helplessness and despair is greatly amplified for foreign prisoners, who face language and cultural barriers. One-third of all prison suicides occur within the first week in custody and the sense of isolation can play a decisive role. On my post-Covid visits, I have found that well-supervised peer support schemes greatly increase prisoners’ ability to take responsibility for their own lives and contribute to the well-being of others during this period. Setting the right trends at the reception stage can transform the whole of a prisoner’s journey.
In HMP Bullingdon, for example, “Hear to Help” prisoner mentors, wearing distinctive purple shirts, play a key support role in early days in custody, visiting everyone when they come on to the wing and doing what officers cannot. Officers are time-poor, mentors are time-rich, and they have often learned the hard way what works and what does not work in prison: they are people the men can connect with and relate to. One mentor said, “We have helped a lot of people and saved lives”. Indeed, a first-time prisoner told me he would not have survived the early days of his sentence without the help of his mentor. Many prisoners have a lack of trust for authority, are anti-uniform and have a fighter mentality. One mentor described prisoners’ violent behaviour as their “safety net”, their go-to response. It is where they feel safe, but it does not actually solve things.
Mentors provide a different safety net for prisoners’ frustrations and anger. They bring isolated people out of their cells, and their shells, encourage them to do things and “talk to them straight” about their cases and their trials. Without access to this peer support, it can take men several months to settle in, but with their help and presence, it is a lot quicker. These mentors are building community by being good role models and hubs around which positive behaviours coalesce.
You might think, where do you find the paragons of virtue who will take responsibility to look after other prisoners in a jail? For these “Hear to Help” mentors, the job itself gave them the turning point to pivot. Most were previously in trouble in prison, but the responsibility turned them around, and got them to work as a team and develop a whole new sense of purpose. They need to be well-supervised by dedicated senior prison officers who know how to build teams and are relationally brilliant. The scheme in Bullingdon is led by a woman who previously worked with struggling families in the community.
Foreign nationals serving very long sentences need a completely different type of peer support: less help to navigate the confusing prison system and more help to navigate their minds. They need to come to terms with what they have done and the fact of long-term incarceration. In HMP Dartmoor, there is more of an emphasis on training ordinary prisoners to deliver what are effectively low-level psychological interventions. Can my noble friend the Minister give the Committee an indication of the prevalence of peer support schemes that go way beyond the traditional orderly system and what plans they have to proliferate them? I also take the opportunity to ask about their plans to house prisoners overseas. What proportion would be FNOs? Can the Government confirm that family ties will be a key consideration in determining which prisoners are held overseas?
To reiterate, there are many foreign nationals we will not be able to deport and many will have very high-risk factors for reoffending. What happens in prison can heighten or mitigate those risks. As one senior governor who oversees several prisons told me:
“Some people have never learned how to be relational—how to turn themselves around and take advantage of the positive opportunities prison can provide. It’s not about being soft or hard on crime, it’s about what works”.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for initiating this debate, which has been very informed. I look forward to the Minister’s response in due course.
The Lords Library briefing explains that under UK legislation, the Government have a duty to consider deporting foreign nationals convicted of an offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment. They can remove foreign national offenders before the end of their prison sentence through various schemes and through prisoner transfer agreements. Prisons refer all cases involving foreign national offenders to the Home Office’s Foreign National Offenders Returns Command to consider whether deportation based on criminality is appropriate. The FNORC has overall responsibility for the management and removal of FNOs. Prisons which are exclusively used for foreign national offenders or are hub prisons have embedded Home Office caseworkers to help progress immigration casework.
In October 2023, the Government introduced changes to the early removal scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This extended the removal window from 12 months to 18 months, subject to the minimum required proportion of time having been served. Then in March, the Government announced that they will release prisoners up to two months early, to deal with the lack of space in our prisons. Prisoners may be released not 18 days early but up to an unprecedented 60 days early. We have argued that there are consequences to this decision, which are that people who have broken the law and, in many cases, pose an ongoing threat to the law-abiding public are directly benefiting from the Government’s decision to permit early release. Do the Government regret that they were in the position to have to make that decision?
The Government tell us that they will free up more spaces in our prisons by cracking down on the number of foreign national offenders, who are taking up space that we can ill afford to spare when they have no right to be in our country. The number that the Government deported last year are significantly lower than the number they inherited in 2010, when 5,383 foreign national offenders were deported in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, thousands of foreign national offenders are living in the community, as I think the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord McNally, both said, post release for several years without being removed. Will the Minister acknowledge that this is the result of chaos and incompetence by the Government he represents, and that it is putting the public at risk and leaving Britain less safe?
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said—very fairly—that this problem will persist whichever political party is in government; that was a fair point for him to make when he opened his contribution. He went on to say that Albanians form a disproportionately large proportion of the FNOs in our prisons. I hope that the Minister can address specifically what he hopes will happen with the removal of prisoners back to Albania. Of course, we in the Labour Party accept the need to stop irregular arrivals and manage the deportation of FNOs as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that this problem is a gnat’s bite for the overall problems. I am not sure I agree with that comment. My local prison is Wandsworth Prison and I would say—this is certainly my perception, from everything that I have been told by everyone I know who works around or in that prison—that it is actually a significant problem in certain prisons. It may be a gnat’s bite overall but a very significant problem for certain prisons.
I thought I might mention my own experience in visiting foreign prisons, which I have done in various capacities over the years. I have been to a prison in Minsk, a prison in Sarajevo and prisons in Tashkent, and they are variable. It is interesting to me that the buildings in Sarajevo were about the same age as our Victorian prisons here in London. It was not too bad, actually; that was my experience. In the prison in Minsk, while the dormitories were very overcrowded, there was in fact a lot of open space where the prisoners could exercise better, in many ways, than what we see in our own country. The prison in Tashkent had a very good bakery and there seemed to be an active programme in trying to rehabilitate people. So, in my experience, prisons overseas are not as bad as one might fear from reading about them in certain types of documentation.
I think I have heard the themes of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in other speeches which he has given. He opened by saying that rehabilitation is hampered by overcrowding, which is of course true. He talked about social video calls and asked whether they can be kept going; I do not know whether the Minister will be able to comment on that, but that seems to be a desirable thing to keep going as far as possible. The noble Lord also spoke about the work of mentors in prisons. It reminded me that I recently read Chris Atkins’ book about being a prisoner in Wandsworth Prison and the work that he did as a mentor; he literally saved lives while working as a mentor there.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, made a lot of pertinent and interesting points. Nevertheless, this debate is about foreign national offenders. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, in particular my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for raising this most important issue. I am not sure that I shall be able to answer in detail all the questions that I have rightly been asked in this debate, but my officials will go through the transcript and I will write to everybody to make sure that the questions are properly answered.
Briefly, by way of background, noble Lords will see from the House of Lords report that there is a dip in the numbers and that they have started to climb again since the Covid crisis. I am told that, in effect, the dip is accounted for by various difficulties encountered by the Home Office at the time. They include quite a number of legal challenges. One that went to the Supreme Court was on something then called Section 94B, which operated the principle of “deport first, appeal later”; it was lost and, as a result, 700 cases had to be redone. Then, in 2019, there were legal proceedings that, as noble Lords may remember, challenged a lot of charter flights. In the meantime, the modern slavery law came into effect, which increased the number of modern slavery claims being made by prisoners. So a combination of factors led to that decline even before we had Covid, but Covid then had a further adverse effect.
Since then, we have climbed up again, to nearly 4,000 last year—a 27% increase on the year before. I just say that by way of background. I do not accept the stricture that the Government have been in a position of chaos and incompetence; I think those were the words used. The Government have been doing their best with a very difficult situation.
Against that background, briefly, there are, roughly speaking, about 10,000 or so prisoners who are foreign national offenders. About one-third of those are on remand. We cannot do anything about that, so we are talking about 6,500 people or something of that kind. Of course, there are also foreign nationals in the community —that is the number in prison—but we are doing our level best to improve performance in that respect. As I said, we returned nearly 4,000 FNOs from prison last year.
The Lord Chancellor has talked about the new measures that we are introducing; they include the early removal scheme, with which noble Lords are familiar. Between January and March this year, almost 400 foreign national offenders were removed—a 61% increase over the same period last year. Part of this is also due to the increasing use of prisoner transfer agreements. I shall say a word about that because it has, rightly, cropped up in the debate.
The Albanian agreement came into effect, or was improved, in May 2023 in order to speed up prison transfers, with greater numbers of the most serious offenders to be sent back to Albania. That is continuing but, even in the case of Albanian prisoners, there are still procedural difficulties that cause delays in the process. For example, each transfer has to be approved by the Albanian courts, which must sanction the Albanian authorities’ power to hold the prisoners, as it were, when they arrive back in Albania. It is a lengthy process; indeed, quite apart from prisoner transfer agreements, one is wrestling with some difficult issues in physically deporting a foreign national offender. Often, there will be very late appeals and all kinds of claims raised. In many cases, there will be absolutely no documentation, so you do not even know what country they come from; you then cannot prove where to send them or prove to the receiving state that they are indeed nationals of that state. These kinds of difficulties arise, quite apart from the physical problems of having an aircraft, escorting people and all those kinds of difficulties.
One should not underestimate the operational problems here but the Government are determinedly working on them. A better process has been introduced for dealing with foreign national offenders. There is a new task force across the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and we have recruited 400 additional case workers to prioritise these cases; they have been in place since last month and will streamline the end-to-end process. So the Government are tackling the problem in general terms.
With that broad background, I will see whether I can deal with at least some of the questions I was asked. I will write to noble Lords on the problem of derogations from the convention, which was one of the points raised on the ECHR.
I think the problem with Jamaica has been the difficulty of reaching a political agreement with the Jamaican Government—I think that that is the case, but I will confirm it in writing. The Albanian example is working quite well. We have agreements with many other countries, but they are not always effective, because prison conditions in other countries are not very satisfactory. Sometimes, the agreement is to enable British prisoners in the foreign prison to come back—a recent example was from the Philippines—rather than for us to send people there, so it is a complicated area.
I do not think I can comment on the specific case of Abdul Ezedi in a debate such as this.
We will work very hard to implement the recommendations of the chief inspector’s report. Points about that were well made. It is another aspect where there can be improvement, but, as I said, we are well up—I gave the figure of 61%—on the equivalent period last year in our success in deporting foreign nationals.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Incidentally, going back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I once visited the San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, with the fabulous penal reform campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The month before, 81 inmates died in a fire. It was the grimmest prison I have ever been to, but talking about prisons we have known is by the by.
I will press the Minister on the issue of the chief inspector’s report. He know that one of the key issues raised was the routine and repetitive use of manually accessed spreadsheets. There was no IT system that was trustworthy, to the extent that virtually any management data could be easily accessed. Is that a key imperative for the department to work on, as it prepares its formal response to the chief inspector’s report?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Yes, that is extremely important. I will write with a further update on what can be done about it. It will be no secret to noble Lords that the problem of data across the criminal justice system and the prison system is ongoing, and we are working with various systems of various ages, including those of elderly status. A great deal needs to be improved.
I will press on, having one eye on the time. One of the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was about the deportation of people who came here as a child. As far as they are protected, those people have to rely on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on family life, which is often a successful defence, because they will have no connections with the country to which they are being sent.
On other countries, the one with which we are the furthest forward at the moment, as far as I know, is Italy. The Lord Chancellor hopes to reach an agreement with Italy in the next few weeks. I do not think that I can go further than that, but there have been encouraging negotiations with Italy, and I hope that that and the Albanian situation will help significantly.
I understand that consultation with victims is conducted through victim liaison units. In the case of an FNO facing deportation, I am told that, where victims have signed up to the victim contact scheme, that consultation takes place.
I fully agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Farmer about rehabilitation and the importance of social visits. As noble Lords know, he conducted two important reviews not long ago, and I believe the ministry has accepted all his recommendations. An important part of that work was the social aspect of prisoners. I am not aware of any reduction in emphasis being placed on that, but I will investigate and write accordingly. Almost all prisons in England and Wales now have facilities for secure video calls, or in-cell telephony. I do not know whether that is the case in Minsk or Sarajevo, but it is a considerable improvement on what used to be the case. It certainly does not exist in the United States or, I would have thought, San Miguel prison.
There are important efforts to encourage peer-to-peer support. Pilots are in progress at the moment with a particular focus on FNOs, although there are facilities for long-range contact. FNOs with no visitors can get free phone credits for overseas calls and free video calls, which is considerably better than nothing. As I said, all prisons across England and Wales offer secure video calls.
Noble Lords have raised some important issues. I hope we are grappling with them; their importance is in no way neglected. The overall situation is that the Government are making progress in this area. Noble Lords have made very good points which, if I have not already answered, I will answer in more detail in writing. I close by thanking noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson, for raising these important issues.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Thursday 25th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 26 March 2024 - (26 Mar 2024)
Ethnicity Pay Gap
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prashar
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the growing number of companies reporting their ethnicity pay gap and of the case for legislating for mandatory reporting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, it is encouraging to see more employers choosing to report their ethnicity pay data. Rather than mandating reporting, which may not be appropriate for all employers, our guidance supports those who wish to report by providing a consistent approach and advice on achieving meaningful comparisons. The latest ONS statistics show that it is difficult to compare data across up to 19 different ethnic groups.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is good that a number of companies are now beginning to report voluntarily on this, but why are the Government reluctant to make it mandatory, given that in 2017 it was made mandatory for gender disparity?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. As she will understand, this is a much more complicated area to get meaningful data on. There are five broad categories of ethnicity that are used by the ONS, for example, and 19 specific ethnicities. The Government’s concern is that there is a real risk of misleading data, particularly among smaller firms that may have very few members of staff from a minority community, and therefore a change in one or two people could distort the figures.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Labour has a long-term plan to tackle racial inequality after the longed-for general election, if we are elected, including through our racial equality Bill, which will require large companies to report on their ethnicity pay gaps, as they already do for gender pay gaps. I know that the Minister is absolutely committed to equalities. As a common-sense way to begin the process of tackling these glaring inequalities, we would not mind at all if she would commit to this policy and persuade her Government to support it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will give a couple of examples. First, there was the work the Government did in 2019, when we engaged with a broad range of businesses to understand the complexities of implementing mandatory reporting in this area. It genuinely showed just how complicated it was to do. That was echoed in the Inclusive Britain report chaired by my noble friend Lord Sewell, which brought out a number of points including, critically, the difference between the ethnicity pay gap of those born in this country and those who are not born here, with which I am sure the noble Baroness is familiar.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I have some empathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. There are disparities in pay for ethnic minorities. There are also disparities in senior and board-level positions, where there are targets for women but fewer targets for people from ethnic minorities. If we looked at individual groups within ethnicity, we would never bring about the changes. It is an argument that my noble friend could ask the department to look at again, so that we can move forward and ensure that we can reduce the inequalities that currently exist.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to take this back to the department and share my noble friend’s reflections, but I remind the House that there is no ethnicity pay gap for people born in this country from roughly half the ethnic-minority groups. In fact, in a number of cases there is a pay gap in the other direction. The issue is much greater for those not born in the UK, and there we need to understand to what extent that reflects level of qualification, level of language, age and a number of other factors.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, when the TUC and the CBI are both in agreement that this is a policy that should be introduced and mandated—and the Government spend a great deal of time and effort recruiting workers from overseas to fill gaps in our own labour market—why do the Government not accept the wisdom of the TUC and the CBI? They surely know more about the operation of markets than any Government do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said, the Government have done extensive work engaging with employers in this area. We have the important work of the Inclusive Britain report. An employer of, say, 250 employees would typically have 25 ethnic-minority employees, if it was in line with the national average. With 18 separate ethnicities, the noble Lord can do the maths on the sample size.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s agreement to take this matter back. As I have said before, what you do not measure you cannot manage. I appreciate that the ethnicity mix of one’s workforce is a bit more complex than with compulsory registration of gender pay gaps, but that policy works very well. I hope the Minister will agree that it would be a worthwhile requirement for any larger employer that sees the benefit of having a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government agree that it is worth while but not that it should be mandatory. We have developed clear guidance for employers and are seeking case studies from employers monitoring ethnicity pay data—but also, crucially, their diagnosis of any gaps and their action plan to address those gaps—so that other employers can benefit from their experience.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, one of the ethnicity pay gaps is the difference in income that arises from art awards. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Delaine Le Bas, who has just been put on the Turner Prize shortlist for her art deriving from her Romani heritage, as well as the other distinguished members of the shortlist from minority-ethnic backgrounds?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to celebrate with the noble Baroness.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is aware that some people from certain ethnic backgrounds, for example African-Caribbean, face a much larger ethnicity pay gap. Does she agree with me that this is unacceptable in 2024 and that therefore we need urgent targeted action to address this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right: there are particular groups that have not only a larger ethnicity pay gap but a larger employment gap than other communities. The Government have worked with specific communities. My noble friend raised the Afro-Caribbean communities but there are also, for example, significant barriers to employment and pay differentials for Bangladeshi women. The Government have a number of programmes to address those.
Lord Bird (CB)
While we are at it, can we congratulate PwC for taking people from prison? I think that is a great sign. We must remember that people from ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the prison population.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Of course. I welcome all employers, including PwC, working with those who have been in the criminal justice system and in prison.
Sanctions: Russian Individuals
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international sanctions against Russia, and takes a carefully targeted and rigorous approach to weaken Mr Putin’s war machine and to demonstrate our unyielding support for Ukraine. Together with our international partners, we have unleashed the largest, most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. We keep all our sanction designations under review, but we do not comment on future sanction plans.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Notwithstanding that, does the Minister agree that President Putin is successfully driving forward his barbaric attacks on Ukraine by managing to dodge sanctions, despite the UK Government-imposed measures he has described—including a price cap to curb his profit from Russian oil exports? There is mounting evidence that most Russian oil exports exceed that cap, and Putin seems to be getting all the income he needs to fuel his war economy. More targeted action is surely desperately needed. Will the Government now sanction the insurers—many of which are UK-based—of vessels transporting Russian oil above the cap, and also sanction owners of the ports hosting those vessels? Will the Minister try to get all our allies to do the same?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s final point, as he will know, we are working very closely with our key allies, particularly the G7, on ensuring how we can have more effective implementation of sanctions and how we can address the issue of the circumvention of sanctions. As I am sure the noble Lord would acknowledge, we have seen successes; $400 billion-worth of money has been denied to the coffers of the Russian Government to allow them to continue their illegal war against Ukraine.
The noble Lord mentions specific issues around the oil cap. As he knows, we have banned the import of Russian oil and oil products into our markets. We have also created the oil price cap, to limit the price at which Russia can sell its oil and products globally. We are working with key countries to improve the issue of the circumvention of sanctions. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was in central Asia during the week, and that was one of the key points that he raised during his conversations with Governments across central Asia.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the annual report of the OFSI indicates a dramatic increase in the volume of frozen assets, which, as my noble friend the Minister has indicated, is reassuring across a number of fronts. The question on everyone’s lips now—to use the popular lexicon—is whether we can move from freeze to seize. What investigations are being undertaken to see if there are legally acceptable routes to get some of that money forfeited and then adduced to good causes to help Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, I commend my noble friend for summarising exactly the intent of the UK Government and our partners: to go from freeze to seize. All countries in the G7 have been clear on this. There is a meeting in June, which we will be part of, to look specifically at proposals on the table. The focus right now is on a windfall-plus proposal put forward by the United States, which would involve a loan to Ukraine issued by the US and other willing G7 members and repaid over several years from the future profits generated by Russian sovereign assets held in Euroclear. This is just one practical example of the kind of work that we are doing in co-ordination with our key partners.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the idea of sanctioning Mr Putin and his colleagues, but once again I ask the Government to provide some assurance that great care will be taken to protect the great Russian people—many of whom I know—who may have assets and yet have nothing to do with the war in Ukraine and who have never supported Mr Putin anyway, in general. They are at risk as this country and other countries extend the scope and severity of the sanctions against Mr Putin and his colleagues.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have said to the noble Baroness and others, and as I know all noble Lords agree, our fight is not against the Russian people. We have seen the appalling treatment of those Russians who have been brave—let us not forget the tragic case of Mr Navalny. We are currently seeing others being held, and I know noble Lords are very much seized of that. We need to ensure that we stand with the Russian people against the draconian regime which suppresses their rights as well. I add that our own sanctions regime is based on a principle which allows for legal recourse, if an individual or an organisation has been sanctioned unfairly. This again underlines the importance of the system of appealing against sanctions, if the individual or the organisation feels that it has been unfairly applied.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, Russian oil and gas exports are up 57% over the last year, primarily to African nations and India via an enormous shadow fleet that goes through the Red Sea. We have debated RAF pilots putting their lives at risk to protect that waterway, and we are also in discussions with the Indian Government about giving their energy sector preferential market access to the UK. Is the noble Lord not right that this is now the time to be putting in place secondary sanctions to those Governments who give landing permits for shadow tankers of Russian oil, circumventing UK sanctions, and to pause any particular aspects of discussions with the Indian Government until there is clarity about their purchasing of what is considered, from our perspective, illegal Russian oil?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to go into the process of what may happen next. Our relationships with many countries across the world allow us to have quite direct conversations about the issue of sanctions circumvention. The noble Lord is aware of the initiatives we have been taking with a number of countries—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia immediately come to mind. We have also had bilateral engagement with the likes of Turkey and Serbia. The noble Lord raises India specifically. We have a very open, candid and strong relationship with India. While we are in negotiations about the importance of the trade benefit to both countries, we recognise the important role India has to play. I assure the noble Lord that we exchange quite candid conversations on a range of issues, including the illegal war of Russia on Ukraine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I return to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. When questioned from this side of the House about seizing those assets or using them to ensure that we can rebuild Ukraine, the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly said in this Chamber that “We are working towards it”, and mentioned the G7 and so on. Can the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister raised this with the German Chancellor, to ensure that we get strong support across all the countries, so that we can act and ensure that the Russian state pays for its war of aggression?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we have conversations with all of our key partners, including, as I have already said, quite directly with our G7 partners, on this very issue at the highest and most senior level. We are looking at various proposals; I have alluded to one. I also assure the noble Lord that we are looking at our own domestic legislation as well, to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused, both through individuals who have been associated with the Government of Russia and with the Russian Government themselves. We want to establish a route which sanctions individuals who want to do the right thing—there may be some noble intent there, and so they can donate directly to this. It is important that we act in a co-ordinated fashion. I assure the noble Lord that we are doing just that, at the highest level with G7 partners.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, can we be assured that we are pressing ahead with sanctions against the murderers of Sergei Magnitsky under existing legislation which we have now passed? Should we not also be thinking about the same approach to the murderers of Mr Navalny?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the area of what we may or may not do when it comes to our sanctions regime. My noble friend is quite right: I am very proud of the fact that it was this Government who introduced the Magnitsky-style sanctions, as they are often called, when it comes to the egregious abuse of human rights. It is right that we have acted in this respect. We work very closely with our key partners to ensure that those who commit these egregious abuses of human rights are held accountable.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, when considering secondary sanctions, which may well have an important effect, will the Government take great care to ensure that we do not drive those countries that we are actually trying to woo closer into the embrace of Russia and China?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble and gallant Lord that that is exactly the priority. He will have seen the recent travels of my noble friend. We are ensuring that we build a broad and international alliance, to ensure that the systems, structures, openness and liberalism that we stand for—which allow people to prosper, as we have seen in our own country—are reflected around the world.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, last week in Strasbourg, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommended the seizure of Russian assets to be used in support of the people of Ukraine. Two colleagues from this House, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Foulkes, made powerful speeches in support of that proposal. They have worked out a scheme for how this might be done. Will His Majesty’s Government look at this and see if they can support it?
Crown Prosecution Service: Racial Bias
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of racial bias in Crown Prosecution Service charging decisions.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, as a very happy Evertonian, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we know that some ethnic groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and we need to understand why so we can address this. The Crown Prosecution Service commissioned research which found that outcomes of CPS decision-making differ by ethnicity. However, the research did not identify the reasons for this, so the CPS has proactively commissioned further work to explore the impact of other contributing factors, to address this important issue.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, as the Minister knows, told me from the Dispatch Box that
“race plays no part in individual charging decisions”.”.—[Official Report, 19/10/23; col. 295.]
However, the Crown Prosecution Service itself, as has just been said, in its report last year,
“found evidence of disproportionality in relation to ethnicity in the outcomes of our decision-making”,
and that,
“ethnic minority defendants are significantly more likely to be charged for a comparable offence than White British defendants”.
Can the Minister explain why?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, as we all know, individuals commit crimes, and it is up to us to ensure that they are treated fairly and equally. The Lammy Review, published in 2017, found no issues with the outcomes of CPS charging decisions. Given the level of ethnic disparity across the CJS and the fact that the Lammy Review was undertaken some time ago, the CPS commissioned further independent academic research. The findings of this research, while challenging for the CPS, are an important step in ensuring that the CJS is fair and functioning for all sections of society. I am pleased that further work is being undertaken to provide a deeper understanding of this issue and to find solutions as to how best the system can address it. That work will help to identify any issue with processes, and we expect it to be completed in the last part of 2024.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the disparity and bias that we know about is not new. The MoJ and the Crown Prosecution Service have extensive data. This question has come up time and again. There have been reviews and there has been research. I find it very disappointing for the Minister to say that we do not why this is still happening. We know that black defendants spend an average of 70% longer in prison awaiting trial and sentencing than their white counterparts—the Government’s own data shows this—and we know that black and Asian people in prison are more likely to be serving longer sentences than other groups. Do not these shocking figures really lay bare how racism and injustice is hardwired into the criminal justice system? While sentencing and remand decisions are made by independent judiciary, the Government have a responsibility to tackle this. What is being done to end these disparities?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept the noble Baroness’s comments that individuals are necessarily being treated differently. However, the research did find an issue, and the CPS is taking several steps to ensure that this work is both credible and robust, including development of an independent disproportionality advisory group that will provide independent scrutiny of its internal research regarding disproportionality to provide confidence that the work is suitably focused, rigorous and transparent.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in June 2020 the CPS launched its digital 2025 strategy, which includes how it is going to embrace new technology, including AI. Given that there are many concerns about data bias and algorithm bias in artificial intelligence, what conversations has my noble friend’s department had with the CPS about ensuring that this will not introduce more bias into the system?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the CPS itself demonstrates a remarkable ethnically diverse workforce. While that does not answer my noble friend’s question precisely, this is an organisation that shows that it has an ethnic-minority background of 23%, well above the 15.4% for the Civil Service and the 19.3% for the working-age population. I will try to respond to my noble friend in writing on his specific point.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that my liking for “The Godfather” movies makes me no more or less likely to be a member of the mafia? If I am right about that, why are young black British men being prosecuted for serious violent offences in reliance of evidence of their liking for rap and drill music?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we do not accept that they are more likely to be prosecuted. The point is that we have identified that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and we are researching to find out exactly why that is the case. The raw data suggests that they are being charged more aggressively than the white majority, but we do not understand the factors behind that. The review that we have commissioned will report later this year on exactly what factors we can identify.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I hold responsibility in the Bishops’ prison team for children in the youth justice system, so my question arises not only from access to what I find to be quite disturbing data but also from direct contact with children in the justice system. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to eliminate racial bias, including in charging, against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children in the youth justice system, who are often hidden within official statistics?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling all sorts of racism and discrimination in society. The Government have a robust legislative framework to protect all individuals against unlawful discrimination. Our Inclusive Britain strategy, published in March 2022, set out a ground-breaking action plan to tackle negative disparities, promote unity and build a fairer Britain for all. The strategy includes 74 bold actions to improve outcomes for ethnic minority groups across education, health, employment and criminal justice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Lammy Review was very clear. It said, first, that young men from ethnic minorities—particularly black young men—are more likely to be charged more aggressively, as the noble Lord has just accepted; they are more likely to plead not guilty, which means that they do not get the discount for pleading guilty because they do not trust the system; and they are more likely to be sentenced more harshly when the sentencing actually happens. Will the Government undertake to implement all the recommendations of the Lammy Review?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his question. As I said yesterday at the Dispatch Box, I am not going to make undertakings, but we take these conclusions very seriously and will act on them to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, three times when presented with evidence of how individuals are being treated differently based on race in the criminal justice system, the Minister has said that individuals are not treated differently based on race. Can he furnish the House with the evidence base that allows him to say that with such certainty?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, while we accept that the research from the University of Leeds, which covered 195,000 cases between January 2018 and December 2021, found that white British suspects had the lowest charge rate of 69.9%, and mixed-heritage suspects had a charge rate of between 77.3% and 81.3%, the statistics are alarming, which is why the CPS has responded by conducting this independent review on a timescale which I hope will please the House, reporting by the end of 2024.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, given the age profile of those who come up against the criminal justice system, would it not be wise to cross-reference with research that has been undertaken on school exclusions, which show a considerable reaction to authority from certain ethnic-minority boys in particular and a lack of training on how to deal with and understand that reaction?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the additional review being conducted by the CPS is to identify all other factors that could be at play in delivering this data. Once we have the results of that at the end of this year, we will be able to come to firmer conclusions.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, forgive me: I was not clear enough in the phrasing of my earlier question. Young black men are being charged partly on the basis of evidence that they are listening to rap and drill music. This kind of cultural bias is being used in our criminal courts for very serious prosecutions. Is that right? Is that a practice that the Minister and His Majesty’s Government agree with?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful for the initial question. Of course, the Government do not agree with that. We have indeed provided guidance. The CPS is mindful that labels such as “gang” can lead to discrimination by racially stereotyping defendants. That is why prosecution guidance on gang-related offending is clear that prosecutors should not refer to gangs unless there is clear evidence to support the assertion. The CPS will make further improvements to its guidance, including on gangs, this year.
Jewish Community in London: Safety
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further measures they plan to take to enhance the safety of London’s Jewish community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are steadfast in their commitment to protecting our Jewish communities, which is why we have committed further funding of £72 million for the Jewish community protective security grant to continue the vital work done in protecting Jewish communities until 2028. The JCPS grant is managed by the Community Security Trust, which I had the privilege of visiting a couple of weeks ago and which provides protective security measures at Jewish schools, colleges, nurseries and some other Jewish community sites, as well as a number of synagogues.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the police have a very challenging task to allow peaceful marches, to protect the rights of local people who are observing the march and to arrest those who are blatantly breaking the law—and that they normally they get this right? I ask the Minister to reflect on the Gideon Falter case and just to further reflect on whether, if the person in question had been a hijab-wearing Muslim woman observing a pro-Israeli march, or, for that matter, a Catholic priest, they would have been accused of provocation and threatened with arrest? I suggest that, if that had happened, there would have been massive outrage and the police officers in question would have been dismissed. So all we are really asking for is that everyone should be treated fairly and equally.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that the police have a hugely difficult job, but obviously a police officer telling a person that being openly Jewish is provocative is clearly very wrong. I will not speculate as to what might have happened in the case of other individuals. We should welcome the Met Police’s apology. The Prime Minister recently made it clear to police forces that it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage protests but police them and, of course, do so proportionately. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with Sir Mark Rowley and the Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist earlier this week, and put it very well:
“Jewish people will always have the right to be able to go about their daily lives safely and freely, in London and across the UK”.
The Home Secretary continued:
“Sir Mark has reassured me he will make this clear to all sections of the community as a matter of urgency. The Met’s focus now is rightly on reassurance, learning from what happened, and ensuring that Jewish people are safe and feel safe in London”.
I think we should all support it in that critical endeavour.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would enhance the image and security of the wonderful Jewish people if the Jewish people in this country were to issue a strong statement dissociating themselves from the policies of the Netanyahu Government and the atrocities that have been committed on the people of Gaza, who are also human? Instead of that, the Board of Deputies has unfortunately sent a delegation to Tel Aviv showing solidarity with the Netanyahu Government, whose atrocities include the destroying of hospitals and the firing on aid convoys, killing even British people.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that is a deeply inappropriate question and I will not stoop so low as to answer it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Perhaps I can. British Jews are no more responsible for the actions of the State of Israel than I am.
To return to the question, it is clear that this incident was deeply regrettable; that language about being “openly Jewish” was wrong and I am glad that the Met Police has apologised for it and will take the opportunity to reflect and ensure that all Londoners can have confidence in it and everyone can feel safe in their city. I will not try to second-guess policing decisions and I would not expect the Minister to do so, but I am sure that discussions are ongoing around these issues in government. I noticed that this Question was originally down to be answered by the Minister for Faith. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Minister for Faith is being drawn into these discussions so they are not simply seen as a policing or security matter?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we have to consider all the various aspects of policing in the round. The noble Baroness is quite right; public order policing is very complex and obviously very challenging, but it remains incumbent on Sir Mark and of course the mayor as well to ensure that London remains a safe and welcoming city. As I said in an earlier answer, I believe that the force’s focus ought to be on proportionate policing, making sure that it is done properly and fairly, and obviously we will continue to back forces in that, using all aspects of government.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, just to follow up on the noble Baroness’s point about drawing in other issues, not just leaving it to policing, the question is about enhancing the safety of our Jewish community. What more can we do to enhance it? Once it gets to policing, we know that it is in a bad place. How can we stop it getting to that point and enhance the safety of our Jewish communities right across the United Kingdom?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I answered that in my initial remarks, in which I mentioned the funding that has been increased for the Community Security Trust to administer in the JCPS. Just to go back to the Community Security Trust—I declare an interest as I was at the dinner where the Prime Minister announced the additional funding and I donated some money to it—the fact is that it has an enormous network, which I know is incredibly sophisticated, having seen it in operation, the police work incredibly closely with it, and it does a fantastic job. I very much praise it for all the work that it does.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, from a slightly different angle, the additional funding from the Government mentioned by the Minister is extremely welcome, but it is not assuaging the additional insecurity felt by the Jewish community after 7 October. A recent survey found that 50% of British Jews are currently considering leaving the United Kingdom. This would spell disaster for Britain, which desperately needs their talent and creativity and the diversity that they bring to British life. We as politicians have an important role to play here, and we must be extremely careful about what we say and do, which could inflame tensions and increase divisions that are growing and are already way too wide.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s statement.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for their commitment to protect the Jewish community, and I ask my noble friend whether he will join me in paying tribute, as I am sure he will, to the CST, which is trying to keep Jews safe. I declare my interest as a British Jew and to my other interests in the register. While there are weekly marches calling for “globalising the intifada” and eradication of the only Jewish state, when Jews are pelted with bricks and beaten with bars, and children are threatened on the way to school and university students threatened on campus, I feel that it would be most appreciated if the Government would look carefully at banning more of organisations such as Palestine Action, which has come to light, and other groups which seem to want to target the Jewish community directly, when we have no responsibility for the actions of an overseas Government.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points. Of course, as has been often stated from the Dispatch Box, the Government do not comment on ongoing matters of possible proscription. The police can of course impose conditions on protests where they believe the protest may result in a variety of civil offences, serious disorder, damage to property and so on and so forth, but the ability to actually ban protests is a complex one under the Public Order Act. Of course, I agree with my noble friend, but it is incumbent on all citizens to reassure the Jews, who are feeling so under pressure.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords have been following the events at Columbia University and the encampment there, where there have been some pretty horrific scenes of students screaming rather maniacally to exclude “genocidal Zios”, and using other very offensive and anti-Semitic slogans, and so on. It has just completely got out of hand. The global student movement is coming to the UK: “From Gaza to Columbia to London” is the slogan, and it starts at UCL at 1 pm on Friday 26 April. I am not saying that as an advert, and I am not particularly worried about people protesting or about their interpretive dance against colonisation that they are bringing over. However, I am worried about anti-Semitism on London and other British campuses. Safety is not just a policing question. Can the Minister assure us that guard is being taken against what is happening on campuses, where the levels of anti-Semitism are now routine and normalised?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend from the Department for Education assures me that there is protection on British campuses. However, I also acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness made and share her concerns; these trends are very disturbing.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the take-up of grants for the protection of religious premises from attacks? Is he aware of some of the concerns that the processes that his department requires from faith communities are extremely complicated for often quite small sums of money?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have any statistics to hand on that. But, again, the money that we were talking about making available in my initial Answer is administered by the Community Security Trust; there is no application process to access that pool of funds.
Transport System: Failings
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
That this House takes note of the case for a coherent plan to address the failings of the transport system.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, the wording of the Motion before your Lordships’ House calls for greater coherence for Britain’s transport system. I hope that, while debating this important matter, we can agree on both sides of the House that coherence is the one thing that is lacking. Indeed, the current Government made a virtue of a lack of coherence with their transport policy. I will come to the divisions within the rail and bus industry in a moment or two, but we lack an overall transport policy in this country and have done for many years. In so far as our major transport sectors are concerned—bus and rail—it is the British people who have suffered, particularly the passengers on both modes of transport.
The failings of our railway network are many and manifold. Since privatisation in 1994, fares for passengers on our railway system have increased by around 20% in real terms; that is not what we were promised when the privatisation Bill went through both Houses of Parliament. We were told that the thrusting private enterprise system being introduced would not just increase competition between railway companies but bring lower fares to its passengers. The result, of course, has been exactly the opposite. We have seen a failure in reliability since privatisation. I have no wish to bore your Lordships with stories of my time on British Rail, but the cancellation of a passenger train in my days in an operating role was virtually unheard of. Because it was an integrated system, we could generally find locomotives, drivers and train crew that could be moved from one role to another in the event of any hiatus within the timetabling system. That does not happen now; because of privatisation, drivers for one company often cannot drive the locomotives of another company; train crews who do not know the route from A to B cannot step in when short-term cancellations take place. Again, this is not what we were promised at the time of privatisation, but it is the reality that we have today.
I read this morning that something like a thousand trains a day on the railway system are cancelled. No other railway system in the developed world has to face such a nonsense on a daily basis. We will be assured by the Minister that everything is in hand and the railways will continue to improve in future, but it is just not true. Another aspect of this is the collapse of morale among those who work in the railway industry. I use Birmingham International station on a regular basis to travel to and from London. The staff there tell me that on some days they hide from the public because they are so ashamed of the product that they have to put in front of them. They also say that, by and large, information is not transported down the line—no pun intended—to those at the front end so that they can pass it on to passengers; they are as unaware as the rest of us of when things go wrong and how they can be put right. This leads, as I have indicated, to a collapse in morale—and in industrial relations generally.
This Government appear to need to find an enemy rather than deal with any problems. The latest enemy, as far as the railway industry is concerned, is ASLEF, the drivers’ union: no negotiations have taken place between the train operating companies and the representatives of ASLEF for over a year. All the Government can say is, “But they earn £60,000 a year”. Well, I do not object to train drivers earning £60,000 a year; it is about an afternoon’s work for a hedge fund operative—whatever they actually do. Someone in a responsible position such as a train driver should be properly paid, and train drivers and their representatives ought to be consulted about not just wages but the aims of the railway industry. We all know that the train operating companies take their orders from His Majesty’s Government in this supposedly privatised world, so they have their hands tied and cannot freely enter negotiations with ASLEF and the other railway trade unions.
We were promised when privatisation took place that there would be an upsurge in new rolling stock and new locomotives for the railway industry. Yet we have just rescued Litchurch Lane in Derby by a last-minute order for trains, to keep something like 1,500 skilled personnel in work there and thousands of other people in the supply chain. Hitachi recently opened, with some fanfare, a factory in the north-east, but that now faces closure because of the dearth of orders for the railway industry, and this has been partly brought about by the nonsense of HS2. I do not wish to rehearse the whole business again in front of your Lordships, but no other country could put forward proposals for a high-speed railway and then keep cutting them back. Only the current Prime Minister could go to Manchester to a Conservative Party conference to tell it that the high-speed line between Birmingham and Manchester is cancelled and expect a standing ovation for doing so. That truncated high-speed route will not just directly impact passengers. Without getting too bogged down again in the details of what is left of HS2, I point out that to travel from Handsacre Junction to Old Oak Common is not quite what was envisaged at the time the proposals for this high-speed railway were put forward. The rump of it has been summed up as a railway starting somewhere that no one has ever heard of, to end up somewhere no one wants to go. Only the present Government could devise a high-speed railway that would make journeys between, for example, Manchester and London no faster and, in some cases, slower than the existing line. The need for a proper strategy for the railway industry is pretty obvious.
I turn also to the bus industry. Those of us who take an interest in these matters were intrigued some years ago to see the Prime Minister at the time, somebody called Boris Johnson—I wonder what happened to him—announce with great fanfare a scheme called Bus Back Better. He was a great man for gimmicks, but what has been the reality of Bus Back Better since its inception? The answer is that bus services throughout the country have been decimated, and many towns and cities that formerly had a proper bus service no longer have such a thing.
At the time of bus privatisation—I was a Member of the other place then—Nicholas Ridley made a virtue of the thrusting competition that would result from the 1984 privatisation Act. Yet towns and cities in this country have seen not only their bus fares increase, in real terms, by around 15% to 20% but their bus services decimated. There is a whole list of casualties of bus services, which have been reduced in previous years, including in cities such as Bath. Everybody talks about Birmingham, of course, and that the near bankruptcy in Birmingham is all the Labour Party’s fault. I do not think that Bath is particularly regarded as a left-wing bastion, yet bus services there have reduced by about 70% since privatisation. The fact is that local authorities, having been starved of funds, have no finance to subsidise essential bus services, and even the commercial routes in many of our cities up and down the country have been cut back because of financial problems.
Bus Back Better has turned out to be “bus back a lot worse” over the last couple of years. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government propose, other than postponing all the decisions until after the next general election, when they will not be affected anyway, as far as bus services are concerned.
Lastly, I will talk for a moment or two about the road network, important though it is. Again, in theory we have a £20 billion-odd road programme in this country, yet driving around our major towns and cities is an object lesson in pothole avoidance. I was driven into the centre of Birmingham the other day to a hospital. I have a bad hand so I cannot drive; I was going on to the railway station, so I do not want to be accused of failing to use public transport. It was fascinating to watch how the regular drivers and commuters weaved their way through all the potholes at major junctions. Are we serious? We supposedly have a £24 billion or £25 billion road-building programme, yet we cannot fill potholes in our towns and cities. The Government will again blame wasteful local authorities, but they have cut back the resources for local authorities for many years. How are local authorities supposed to provide not only the essential statutory services but the upkeep of the infrastructure in the areas they represent?
The lack of a transport strategy is not the only disaster. There is also the attitude of the Treasury towards any major project. All the Treasury ever sees is the cost; benefits never ever occur to it. The fact is that investment in our road, railway and transport system brings a return far in excess of the initial cost, in most cases, but, short-termism being the curse of Britain over the years, the fact is that many of the projects that need to be completed are put aside, HS2 being only one example.
The lack of enthusiasm, strategy and planning as far as our transport system is concerned makes this country the laughing stock of the western world. The fact is, we need proper long-term planning for many of these major infrastructure projects, both road and rail. I leave the last word to the Institution of Civil Engineers, which makes exactly that same point: that short-termism has bedevilled British infrastructure projects for years, and that when things go wrong the Treasury all to soon says, “We can save billions of pounds by cancelling a specific project”. The nation has been the great loser in this lack of any sort of transport strategy over the years, and I hope that, during the course of the debate, I can take noble Lords on both sides along with me when I say that it is the nation that has been the loser. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on securing it. Despite the somewhat dismal litany we have heard from him, many of us will recognise the challenges and the points he made. I also congratulate him on the fact that, based on the Labour Party’s announcement of a new transport policy today, which is all over the newspapers, he is obviously still pulling the levers of power in the party.
I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a truism that an effective transport system is a central part of an industrial strategy and a driver for growth. It allows towns and cities to have ready access to skills and it opens up the possibility of development. It allows the movement of freight effectively and contributes to individual travel and leisure. Properly managed, it should also contribute to net zero and a healthier environment, as well as providing a means of levelling up. That list of desiderata shows how vital an effective transport strategy is. The list also provides criteria for judging how effective the Government have been in delivery. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister in this regard.
The Institution of Civil Engineers, which the noble Lord has just referred to—I thank it for its helpful briefing—points out that uncertainty is a problem. The delays and the cancellation of a large part of HS2 are a graphic example of that. I was a strong supporter of HS2. Key large-scale infrastructure projects are generally, if not universally, to be encouraged. I do not believe, for example, that there are hordes of people who would reverse the Channel Tunnel project now. Also, a glance at the position in other countries is a valuable exercise and a demonstration of major infrastructure’s success in being a driver for growth, be it France, Japan, Germany or elsewhere.
Fragmentation of responsibility is another key problem that has probably bedevilled successive Governments. Investment in England’s railways and roads is determined on a different cycle by central government. The centre is also responsible for capital for local roads, bus support and a range of smaller funding pots. Then, of course, there is the new array of metro mayors and combined authorities with various transport responsibilities. I pause there to congratulate the Government on metro mayors and combined authorities. It is the right policy and is leading to innovation and acting as a driver for growth. My point is that it is one additional layer that has to be brought in as part of the overarching, powerful national strategy. The same is true of the national policies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which present another part of the national UK strategy that has to be adopted. I will be keen to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this.
As I hope we can all agree, we need to speed up national planning decisions. Again, it could act as a driver of a true national transport policy. We need to sharpen our focus on net zero with a push for the use of trams, buses and trains in and between urban areas. This is not, of course, a war on the motorist, but it is a recognition that effective public transport deserves consistent support through funding and policy levers. In this regard, and I declare my interest as a regular rail user—I know my noble friend the Minister is too—the system is creaking badly, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has said. We see it every day and it is harming our economy.
I wonder whether I may digress slightly from infrastructure policy to the damaging industrial relations position on Network Rail. I have informed my noble friend the Minister that I would raise this. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, also touched on it. This has gone on for far too long. I wonder what the Government are doing to promote a lasting settlement. Strikes and industrial action not only cause harm to individual journeys and travellers but damage the economy as a whole.
I will share a personal example. I chair a charity—International Students House in London—and every time there is a strike, a plethora of commercial bookings for that charity is cancelled for strike days. This causes dismay and individual disappointment but, above all, it damages the economy of the charity. It is an illustration of what is happening across the nation, with hundreds of thousands of examples up and down the country.
In the time available, I also make a plea for a lasting cap on bus fares. I approve of the cap, which is due to run out in November this year, but what is happening after that? This is another example of the uncertainty in the system. We need to know on a much broader basis what is going to be happening and to know about funding for buses up and down the country.
I know that much rests on my noble friend’s shoulders and that he is well aware of the problems and doing what he can to help. We really need some certainty, an end to the fragmentation and speedier planning. Certainly, looking at the position in rail should be the number one priority for the department but there is also the national bus system and how we can do something on fares. I look forward to listening to my noble friend’s response at the end of the debate.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on securing this debate. Over the years there has been no better advocate for the railway than him in your Lordships’ House and in the House of Commons before that. He features significantly in the three books on railways and politics that I co-authored.
I remind the House of my railway interests as declared in the register. I chair the Great Western Railway stakeholder advisory board and the North Cotswold Line Task Force and am president of the Heritage Railway Association. I apologise to the House for not declaring the HRA interest when I asked a question in the Chamber yesterday about coal supplies for steam railways.
For nearly 20 years from the mid-1970s onwards, I was an adviser to the British Railways Board. This was the last time the industry benefited from the influence of a guiding mind and from the energy and enthusiasm of its chairman, Sir Peter Parker, and his immediate successor, Sir Robert Reid. It was their misfortune—and the country’s—that this coincided with a period of managed decline and retrenchment on the railway, as transport policy placed far too heavy a reliance on car usage and road haulage.
One of the consequences of that mindset was the decision to reduce the size of the network and take out capacity. With the demand for rail travel having grown so markedly over the past two decades, much effort and huge expense have had to be incurred in the limited programme of station and line reopenings. So much more could have been achieved had many of those closures not happened.
We are now about to embark on another seismic reorganisation and have to get it right. The Government are not short of advice on what needs to be done, and I particularly commend the Manifesto for Rail published by the lobby group Rail Partners. It says:
“Whoever is in office after the next general election needs to take decisions to ensure the industry has the ability to attract passengers back to restore hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue, drive modal shift for goods against more polluting modes, and ultimately set up the railway for sustainable success. The public is not that interested in how our railways are structured or organised, they just want to have trains that run on time, that are not disrupted by strikes, and fares that offer them the best value for their journey”.
It is crucial that, with a general election coming so soon and—I think most Members of your Lordships’ House would agree—a change of administration very much on the cards, every effort is made now to achieve a cross-party consensus on what needs to be done. To his credit, I believe that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, gets this, as does the Minister for Rail in the other place, Huw Merriman. I very much appreciate the invitation the two Ministers sent to Members of your Lordships’ House to attend the briefing on the draft Bill on 19 March. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, played a prominent part in that, and I am pleased to see him in his place today. The briefing was also given by members of the Great British Railways transition team.
The overriding priority is to pass rail reform legislation, establish Great British Railways as soon as possible and get on with improving the railways by stimulating demand and reducing cost. The Bill contains some helpful measures in this regard, notably the creation of an integrated rail body, the IRB. In legal terms, the body combines the DfT’s role as franchising authority and takes over the role of infrastructure manager undertaken by Network Rail. The IRB will be held to account on how it delivers rail services and be accountable for the whole system, including passenger revenue and a freight growth target. It is potentially good news for passengers and freight users and could simplify the railway, making it cheaper to run.
The Bill gets decisions away from a remote, non-operational Whitehall department and provides the opportunity to join up the railway closer to the people who use it. The new IRB model should help tackle high costs and project delays. One of our railways’ greatest challenges is the way UK capital projects regularly come in at a much higher cost than those in other countries. Stop-start investment and changing government plans result in project managers overspecifying schemes and suppliers putting in high cost estimates to cover the risk of uncertainty. The cost of electrification schemes is a particular example, and has proved to be the death knell of extending the benefits of HS2 to the north of England and Scotland.
A prerequisite for the IRB’s success is to take revenue risk away from the Treasury and cost control from the DfT. The new body needs to be judged solely on the net subsidy and public investment cost. Rail usage has broadly doubled since privatisation, resulting in a much more congested network, and it is important that we have proper trade-offs on its future usage and meet that demand.
It is evident from the statements made by the Prime Minister and No. 10 that railways are now seen as a problem rather than an opportunity and that tactical policy is now strictly controlled by the Treasury rather than the DfT, with minimising costs being the primary objective. Yet rail is essential if we are to meet the carbon reduction targets required in the transport sector. While electric cars may help, no such solution is available for aviation or heavy haulage, which will be dependent on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Rail passenger services that offer times competitive with air are essential to reduce the need for internal and short-haul European flights. The same is true for container trains between the ports and inland distribution centres. Not only is rail now cheaper for many of these flows but customers are increasingly demanding environmentally sustainable rail solutions to reduce their carbon footprint.
I will finish with the concluding sentence from Signals Passed at Danger, my third book on railways, published last year:
“The railways’ capabilities are manifest when the management of the railways is restored to those competent to operate them, with a clear strategy and funding agreed to deliver the outputs of that strategy”.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on securing this timely debate on the failing transport system. We are normally limited to 30 seconds of quick-fire questions to the Minister, which are batted back. We need to give the new Minister time to understand the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, had. Now that she skips around the House of Lords without the responsibility of answering for Avanti, she looks about five years younger.
I think we would all agree that the UK’s long-term economic, environmental and social objectives are not being realised at the pace required, and transport has a key role to play in meeting those strategic objectives. It
“enables productivity and economic growth as well as quality of life and social well-being”—
not my words but those of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Mind you, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, said, there are many forms of transport, and the roads are not much better. There are smart motorways with cameras not working and no safety lanes. If you are on a smart motorway and you break down, you wonder whether your life is literally in your hands. It is unacceptable. There are prolonged lane closures and endless repairs due to budget cuts. There are speed restrictions and, in Greater Manchester, bad design. The M60, the orbital motorway that runs around it, floods around Denton in heavy rain. If there is a motorway that floods, somebody needs to think about that.
There are bus services, again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. Greater Manchester has dealt with that problem now. That is the beauty of elected mayors: collective responsibility for local people making local decisions. They have taken the buses back into local ownership. Those bus routes will now reflect the routes that they need to run on, at a price that people can afford. They will give a better service and will be integrated with other services. In Greater Manchester, we are now working to try to integrate them with the taxis and trains, trying to get something like an Oyster card going.
As I travel down to London daily on the two-hour grind—well, two hours on a good day, normally two hours 20 minutes upwards—I listen to podcasts. The last one I heard was from Transport for the North, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who is in his place today. They had Andy Mellors, the MD of Avanti, on. It is worth a listen. Mayor Burnham, and Mayor Rotheram from Liverpool, were questioning Andy about tickets sold for a Saturday service. They were asking him, “When are your trains cancelled for a Saturday service?” He said, “We cancel those trains on Friday afternoon”. They said, “When do you stop selling tickets for those trains on Saturday?” He said, “At 2 pm on the Saturday afternoon”. So Avanti was selling tickets for a train that was never going to run.
That particular Saturday, Chelsea Football Club—which I have no love for—was in Manchester to play a football match. There were hundreds and hundreds of supporters trapped in Manchester; you could not get back to London. Following that meeting, they asked the Minister to remove the franchise immediately. It is very funny: I think that that meeting was on Tuesday or Wednesday, and on Friday ASLEF was called in, and—surprise, surprise—£600 a shift was offered to ASLEF drivers to work weekends, which they gratefully accepted without any negotiation. That has made it a bit easier.
But trains are being cancelled. I got the 8.04 this morning; the next train and the one after that were cancelled. Had I not made the 8.04, I would not be stood here this afternoon speaking in this debate. I have heard today of Labour’s plans to run down the contracts of failing companies over five years, but I have to say that that will only add to the misery of thousands of travellers. I will try to explain why.
Avanti trains have three types of travel—actually, they have four. They have standard class, upper premium and first class. They also have another class: sitting on the floor from London to Manchester, which happens very often when trains have been cancelled and they declassify and allow complete overcrowding on them. I have photographs of me sat there. People who know me find it highly amusing to take pictures of me, sat on the floor, demanding I do something about it—which, unfortunately, I do not have the power to do.
If you go in standard class, you buy your ticket and sit down, and then the messages begin to come: “Today, we are not taking cash. Today, we are not taking card. Today, the coffee machine is not working. Today, the toilets are not working”. It goes on and on. These are new trains. You go to upper premium, which is a standard class ticket that you can buy in advance, pay £25 and sit in a first-class seat with a table and wifi. Unfortunately, in the last pay round, they put an extra £5 on that. It is now £30 to sit in the same seat you sat in last week, with no additional benefits. First class is apparently even better: “Chef’s not turned up today. No service. Food has not been delivered today. No service. Water leak in the kitchen. No service”. It is just unacceptable all around.
I wrote down a point about staff morale and the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has done it. I know that train operators do their best, but they do not: if you talk to train managers who have been there for 20 or 25 years, they will tell you that they are absolutely terrified of turning up for work. They have no idea whether the stock will be there and the kit will work, and they take abuse from the public, day in, day out. That is absolutely unacceptable. They do a great job and should be supported more. Just to say that the contracts can run down is an abrogation: thousands of people go up and down every day and they deserve a better service.
Finally, Trooping the Colour is this year, on 15 June. I know lots of people who have tickets and are going to it. Unfortunately, on that Saturday, there are no direct trains to London from Manchester: you can go via Wolverhampton or have a double diversion at Crewe. It is absolutely incomprehensible that this company can keep the contract. I hope the Minister will keep the pressure on—because I know, as we say up north, that he gets it—and does something to accelerate the removal of this contract or demands immediate improvements with huge penalties if that does not happen.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for calling this debate. I shall return to his comments later. My contribution had to be urgently amended late last night, following the more than excellent news that a Labour Government would grasp the nettle and take rail back into public ownership. Whereas I had originally intended to canter around the course on wider issues of public transport, I now intend to confine my remarks to the excesses of private rail and, in particular, its ticket pricing structure under privatised arrangements.
The rising cost of travel following privatisation illustrates perfectly the distinction in priorities between the public and private sectors. Whereas the driver behind public service operations is serving the public interest, the driver behind private sector operations has to be service, but compromised by profit. The water industry provides us with a classic example, particularly in London and the south-east. I am not ideologically opposed to privatisation: I am opposed to privatisation in conditions of monopoly. Monopolies invariably and inevitably abuse their position, whether through restriction of supply or sectoral excess profit taking. This is what has happened under rail privatisation. The idea that you have real competition on the railways, justified on the basis of competing franchises, is for the birds. It is a myth. The reality is that rail franchising under privatisation has saddled us with a string of monopoly providers. That is the case on much of the national network.
For example, if you bring up National Rail Enquiries on 03457 484 950 and ask for a return ticket from Carlisle to London—I see my noble friend there on the Front Bench, who will be regularly buying these tickets—you receive the monopoly price. I was told this morning that there is one contractor, Avanti West Coast, and I give an example. A traveller ringing up to purchase that Carlisle to London standard anytime open return ticket will pay £392. It is grossly overpriced. It is designed in such a way as to catch the traveller going about his or her business and requiring early attendance at their destination. It is excessive, unreasonable and exploitative.
How about this one? A traveller travelling first class on the same train, on a similar Carlisle to London open return, will pay—listen—£538. I ask colleagues to compare that with the return fare from London to Beijing, in the People’s Republic of China, which is available today on the internet from British Airways at £382. Similar ticket prices were available from China Airlines and Lufthansa. So it costs the same to travel standard class—second class in the old days—from London to Carlisle and back as to fly from London to Beijing, in China, and back. What a nonsense.
The response of the wider is public is perfectly understandable: drive by car, add to air pollution, add to and put up with congestion on the motorway system, even risking the potholes that characterise much of our motorway network, and then go on to further increase congestion in London when you arrive. That is the legacy of privatisation: ignore the public interest and put profit before people.
Of course, the rail companies respond with the mantra: “pre-book”, “pre-book”. My main complaint in today’s debate is that it is hugely inconvenient for many in the world of work to pre-book, where travel is essential, often at short notice. Business, wider industry and professionals need to rely on sensible input costs if they are to remain competitive. They do not necessarily need subsidy but equally they need to avoid exploitative costs if the need is to remain competitive. The whole system of same-day ticket pricing is in urgent need of reform, and I am confident that a Labour Government will address that problem.
My case is simple. Public utilities are there to support the wider economy. Their pricing structures should reflect the public interest, not the pursuit of speculative profits. Labour has to sort this out. That is at the heart of yesterday’s announcements, which I hugely welcome.
Before closing, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape, an old friend of mine, on bringing this debate. He lives in the real world. Like me, he rejects a world where the “profit at any cost” approach to the provision of public services trumps the wider public interest.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I too commend the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for initiating this timely debate, from which I suspect a fair amount of consensus will emerge, at least about what is wrong.
In the noughties, I worked as Tony Blair’s strategy adviser, and among my tasks was to lead a study by officials of the UK’s transport system—road and rail. It was a sorry, chastening experience. We identified that the UK had, by a country mile, the least developed road and rail network of any major country. The core reason for this was that, for the previous 50 years or more, the UK had invested—under both main parties—a lower share of GDP than other major countries. At the first sign of economic reverse—it happened time and again—capital spend was cut in favour of current spend. Frankly, the Treasury appeared not at all to value the payback that comes over time from investing in more efficient transportation. Germany’s GDP per hour worked is 23% greater than the UK’s; France’s is 17% greater. Of course, their superior performance is not all down to their superior infrastructure, but it surely helps.
Tony Blair gave an in-principle go-ahead to a high-speed rail network linking Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds to London. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, picked up the baton. It is nationally shaming that, 20 years later, no part of that vision is operating, and that, ridiculously, after multiple revisions, only the Birmingham to London section of HSR is now under construction.
At the time of Tony Blair’s go-ahead, China had no high-speed rail network at all. Now, incredibly—it is very hard to believe this figure—China has more than 40,000 kilometres of HSR in operation. As we meet today, the UK has 113 kilometres of high-speed rail. A World Bank study identifies how China has achieved this remarkable transformation: a well-analysed long-term plan, standardised design and construction, and a competitive supply network, and all at two-thirds per kilometre of any other country. Since 1990, China, with a GDP per capita of around $12,000, has also built 130,000 kilometres of motorway.
The UK’s transport system is not remotely fit for purpose, as we have heard over and again in this debate. I visit the north regularly. Many industrial areas in and around the Pennines are criss-crossed by small, narrow roads—the legacy of earlier eras. These now carry commuter traffic, and at peak travel times are severely overloaded. Recently, I was trapped on the M62, not by an accident but by a gridlocked major junction. As a result, it took me just under three hours to travel the 16 miles from Leeds station to my hotel destination. Best practice would be to design motorways to carry long-distance traffic and for secondary road networks, as in other countries, speedily to convey regional and local traffic.
The train from Liverpool to Norwich, passing through and stopping at some of our great cities—Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and Peterborough—takes five and a half hours. If, rather than take the train from Liverpool to Norwich, you decided instead to fly from Liverpool to Sharm el-Sheikh, you would reach Sharm el-Sheikh more quickly than you would Norwich.
As in so many areas of our national life, we are now operating in slow motion as a country. We need to get a grip; we need massively to raise our game. In transport, we need to learn from the rest of the world and identify what kind of infrastructure is needed in a crowded country heading towards and beyond a population of 70 million. We need to accept that it will take 25 to 50 years to create, but we need to start now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on the wording for his debate. He has hit the nail on the head, in saying that we have lots of incoherent plans and need a strategy, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, also said. I fully support this, and we have had some very interesting speeches so far.
I shall say a few words about rail, but this debate is about transport. We had a very interesting briefing from the Low Traffic Future alliance, which reminded us that transport is for moving people and goods. Net zero is important but we have big problems, such as the increased dependency on motorised traffic, poor public transport, poor walking and cycling conditions—certainly compared with the continent—and potholes. I actually came off my bike when I hit a pothole a week or two ago, and it was not very pleasant. We do not seem to be doing anything about that either. We are also out of balance in the benefits of transport between the different regions.
There is an argument for, after the next election, before rushing into legislation, thinking carefully about a national transport strategy. Everybody has been talking about strategies today and I will not go into the detail now. That could involve pausing road schemes and putting more investment into healthy and sustainable transport, and probably helping with changes to planning law. On the railways, it is interesting. We now have the two major parties coming forward with plans to reorganise the railway by legislation, putting the customers first, which is wonderful. I wonder whether actually we need legislation at this stage. How much of it can be done without legislation?
Noble Lords will remember the strategic rail authority, which took two years to be created and then, after a couple of years, two years to be removed. During those two years, very little happened and some of us got extremely frustrated that nothing was happening. I think it is worth looking at what can be done to put customers first with some quick wins. Many noble Lords have mentioned strikes. That is the first thing, and I trust that a new Labour Government will address that. I believe that many of the problems that I and noble Lords have spoken about this morning are down to bad management. I am not sure that it matters particularly whether the management is nationalised or private sector; the Rail Partners’ proposals are a pretty good mix of the two. The management, mainly from the Department for Transport, with a bit—I do not know whether it is support or not, and we can debate that—from the Treasury, has not organised at all well addressing many of the problems noble Lords have spoken about.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and other noble Lords have talked about train fares, but most are set by the Government. The train operators have to implement them, adding a few of their own fares, such as savers. One of the ideas I shall be pursuing over the next few weeks is that train fares should go to the operator on whose train you are sitting. They do not at the moment, unless it is a saver fare. All other fares are divided: if there are two operators on a route, the fare is divided between the two. That removes all incentive for operators to do better. It is a serious issue. It could be done, as now, most people have their ticket checked electronically. It would mean that the train operator has an incentive to run the trains—as other noble Lords have said, that does not always happen—and to provide decent seating and catering, clean, on-time trains, a timetable that customers want and mitigation for customers when things go wrong. Whether the operator is in the private or public sector does not matter very much. It does not need legislation and it would not cost the Treasury a penny. There is now enough information on tickets for this to be taken forward. Train operators could quickly demonstrate how good they are, if they are, or how bad they are if they are not. That leaves the Department for Transport—until there is a change—to identify whether there should be any changes.
We are having an interesting debate on all this. I do not believe it is necessarily in everybody’s interest, including passengers, to hang around for a couple of years before any legislation gets through. A great deal of this can be done now. If the management in the past few years has been bad—it certainly has been pretty bad—that can be dealt with quickly. We should look at that, rather than saying let us do nothing for two years.
I congratulate my noble friend and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has got to say.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Britain was once a great innovator in transport. It was the first of the European nations to create a modern transport network. In the late 18th century, John McAdam and Thomas Telford, known to his contemporaries as the Colossus of Roads, were at the forefront of an endeavour to construct a serviceable network of highways that expedited travel in an unprecedented way.
At the same time, a network of canals was under construction that enabled goods and freight to be conveyed over long distances. Then, from the middle of the 19th century, a vast network of railways was under construction. This was achieved by speculative private enterprise, which often resulted in private ruin. In Lewis Carroll’s poem, “The Hunting of the Snark”, we hear of threatening a person’s life with a railway share. The process was a free for all, and it endowed the nation with a network that was arguably full of replication and redundancy. It was fit for pruning. It was eventually reduced drastically and, in retrospect, far too extensively, in the 1960s under was aegis of a certain Dr Beeching. He was an engineer and physicist who had worked for Imperial Chemical Industries before he was charged with this task, which made him a prominent public figure.
By the middle of the 20th century Britain’s transport network had fallen into disrepair, and its roads were no longer to be admired. Britain lacked the autobahns, autostrada and routes nationales of its European neighbours, some of which had been inspired by dictators with militaristic intentions. Belatedly, in the 1960s Britain indulged in a feverish process of catch-up that created our own inadequate motorways.
Our rail system had also fallen into disrepair, and it still compares unfavourably with those of its continental neighbours. They have benefited from national investment programmes that have been absent from Britain. Worse was to come when the Conservative Government of John Major denationalised the railways and sought to re-establish the system of large railway companies that had dominated the industry in the 1930s, which was arguably its heyday.
Now, at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, Britain’s transport network faces an unprecedented challenge on two fronts. The first challenge is to provide the means of transporting goods and people in a manner that will cater to the demands of the modern economy. The second challenge will be to staunch the emissions of the greenhouse gases to which transport is a major contributor. Current estimates indicate that transport contributes one quarter of all the nation’s domestic emissions. Most of these emissions come from road vehicles. The additional emissions of international transport are not part of this reckoning.
An inescapable judgment is that the present Government have failed adequately to meet these challenges. The denationalisation of British railways has resulted in a system that lacks the strategic oversight needed to maintain an orderly investment programme. The procurement of rolling stock has become disorganised and sporadic, and much of it is provided nowadays by foreign suppliers. The once great engineering works at Derby that served the London, Midland and Scottish Railway has passed into foreign ownership. It was acquired in 2001 by the Canadian company Bombardier and in 2021 it passed to the French company Alstom. Given the current hiatus in the procurement of new trains, it now seems to be destined for closure. Its demise represents a paradigm of national mismanagement and illustrates the danger of allowing our industries to become offshoots of foreign enterprises.
It must be acknowledged that rail transport contributes only a small proportion of the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide and of greenhouse gasses more generally. However, there are two reasons why attention should be paid to the matter of its reform, and an incoming Labour Government would be committed to do that. First, there are numerous diesel-powered trains on the network that contribute significantly to pollution and need to be eliminated. Next, an expansion of the network would enable people and freight to be transferred from the roads. This would be an effective way of reducing emissions from road vehicles.
The modest size of the total emissions coming directly from the rail network is a testimony to its energy efficiency, and to the fact that much of the traffic is powered by electricity. There must be concern for how the electricity is generated, for it is not free of emissions. Nevertheless, further electrification should be seen as a means of eliminating diesel power. But Britain faces some difficulties in this connection that do not affect continental railways to the same extent. Many of the old bridges and tunnels have small apertures that prevent the installation of overhead electric cables. To overcome this difficulty, trains must be available that are powered by batteries and fuel cells. Here, there has been virtually no progress, for which there can be little excuse.
A major reduction in emissions must come from a major reduction in the number of road vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. There too, the steps taken so far have been wholly inadequate. The Government have backtracked on their original commitment by deferring a ban on the sales of such vehicles to 2035—five years later than originally proposed. The ban on sales of petrol-powered and diesel-powered vehicles should provide a stimulus to our automotive industry, which must adopt batteries and hydrogen fuel cells as a means of powering road vehicles. It will be an effective stimulus for the industry only if there is an accompanying development in the industries that provide batteries and fuel cells.
It is doubtful whether our automobile industry will be able to rise to the occasion. It is in the hands of foreign and international owners who see their British factories as offshoots of their main enterprises. They will be willing to close them and to move their operations elsewhere if this becomes a more profitable option. Manufacturers are liable to be drawn to places where a supply of batteries is closer to hand. The UK has failed to develop an industry that can manufacture batteries in the numbers required. There is only one manufacturer of batteries that operates on a large scale—a plant in Sunderland that supplies the Nissan car factory. It is run by the Chinese company Envision and is small in comparison with the genuine gigafactories that exist elsewhere in Europe and in China. The other automobile manufacturers in the UK rely on imported batteries. Unless we can develop our battery manufacturing, we will be in danger of losing the majority of our motor manufacturers.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on securing it. I declare my interests in the technology field as an adviser to Boston Ltd.
I will speak about accessibility and technology in transport. I begin with buses. In London we are incredibly fortunate with so many of our modes of transport—not least the accessibility of London buses, with their audio-visual output. In 2016 I was privileged to launch Manchester’s talking bus fleet. Other major cities have followed suit. We passed legislation to this effect a number of years ago. When the Minister comes to respond, will he say what this picture is looking like across the country? Is it still down to luck—where you happen to get on a bus—as to whether you can have that audio-visual information that so many of us require?
So-called floating bus stops are those where there is a cycle lane between the pavement, the bus stop and the carriageway where the bus pulls up. How are disabled people supposed to board and alight from those bus services safely and effectively? What equality impact assessment has been done around floating bus stops? It must be clear that buses have to be able to pull up, pick up and drop off at the kerbside, rather than the passenger getting on and off the bus in the middle of nowhere, which is what a floating bus stop feels like. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is time for a moratorium on floating bus stops so that a full impact assessment can be undertaken? Will he convene a meeting with the Secretary of State and interested parties to come up with accessible, inclusive solutions—which floating bus stops certainly are not?
Taxis are an incredibly important part of our public transport network. We currently have the ludicrous situation in the City of London where Bank Junction is closed to black cabs on erroneous safety grounds, even though a black cab has never been involved in an accident there. There are similar issues with cabs at Bishopsgate. They are also barred from Tottenham Court Road. Will the Minister consider writing to the City of London Corporation in relation to Bank Junction and Bishopsgate, and to the leader of Camden Council and the Mayor of London in relation to Tottenham Court Road, to establish how these effective bans on our excellent black taxi fleet deliver accessibility and inclusion? How do those various authorities believe that they are complying with their equality duties, not least the public sector equality duty?
Another area is so-called shared space. Many noble Lords may have had the pleasure of not coming across these. They are an architectural and planning folly where roads are made completely wide open. Pavements, kerbstones, signs, road markings, crossings and signals are all taken away in the belief that road users and pedestrians will be able to get on better and be more sympathetic to one another. Buses and blind people, toddlers and tankers are able to interact in this extraordinary utopia. We managed to achieve a moratorium on all new so-called shared space. Can my noble friend the Minister say what is happening with the maintenance costs of all existing shared space developments? How many have had to be retrofitted to make them accessible for their local communities?
More disabled people are gaining employment than at any time in our history, and leisure and social facilities are becoming more accessible and inclusive. Is it not a tragedy if disabled people are not even able to get there for want of accessible transport, or are so stressed by the time they pitch up at work because of the inaccessible transport experience? What an unnecessary burden to put on disabled people across our country. It is wholly avoidable and yet currently not avoided.
I turn to technology. We have an extraordinary opportunity—nothing short of the complete technologisation of all our transport with AI, blockchain and the internet of things. What extraordinary possibilities we have to optimise the transport system and to connect all its vehicles in real time. Emergency vehicles would be able to be given the best route through congested traffic. Congestion would be reduced and efficiency increased. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on how much technology is being used by National Highways and Network Rail—not least to optimise their assets and resources, but also to get ahead of all the safety and maintenance challenges?
Inclusion and innovation are the golden threads that we need to see running through all our transport networks and systems. We can have a 21st-century transport network on all modes. Currently, we surely do not.
In conclusion, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we do not have public transport in this country? We have transport for some of the public, some of the time. Outside London, Manchester or other major cities, there is transport for some of the public, some of the time. For a disabled person or a wheelchair user, for the blind, hearing or cognitive impaired, there is transport for some of the public, some of the time. In reality, all too often there is fully accessible transport for many of our fellow citizens none of the time. Yet we know how to do this through inclusion and innovation. Imagine public transport inclusive by design and accessible by all. Would that not be quite something?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the compelling contribution to our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. It was also a great pleasure, as always, to listen to my noble friend Lord Snape. He is a great expert on these matters.
I will speak about railways. Like everybody else who wanted to speak about this, I was caught short this morning by my honourable friend Louise Haigh’s statement about the Labour Party’s position on railways, which I fully support. Some 44 years ago, at Newport station in south Wales, there was a banner that said: “Ninety minutes from Newport to Paddington”. We had very comfortable trains, the food was edible and, of course, the stations that the trains went from were impressive—not least Newport station, the second-busiest and second-largest in Wales. I fear that this is not the case today.
When I was a lad, the station had a wonderful façade and a great entrance, and it was admired by all, but someone decided some years ago to change it for the Ryder Cup. They put the station extension in the wrong place, and the building was so awful that it was regarded as the ugliest building built in 2011. Worse than that, when you go to Newport station now you find that the toilets do not work and are out of order; the lifts have been out of order for some weeks; the buffet café has long been closed; when the station floods, it does so extremely badly; and there is a lot of scaffolding in the station. I referred to the banner that said it took 90 minutes to Paddington. Now, 44 years later, it takes 10 minutes longer to get from Newport to Paddington despite electrification—and, of course, the food on the trains is junk.
When you look at the Great Western Railway, which I have done nearly all my life, you see that its staff are hugely impressive, courteous and engaging, and electrification has certainly helped, but over a number of years we have seen a deterioration in the service of a once great railway company. Cancellations of trains are normal, unreliability is inevitable, there is lateness nearly all the time and, perhaps worse than all that, the overcrowding is now wholly unacceptable. The reason is that the number of carriages on the trains running from London to south Wales and the West Country is often cut by half—from 10 to five is quite normal. I was on one not long ago that was so overcrowded that a woman actually fainted at Reading station, and the train had to stop for about 15 minutes.
Over the last three decades we have seen deterioration. In 1994, when I was in the House of Commons, I voted against privatisation, and I see no reason in the world why I was wrong. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours’s excellent speech on what has happened to railways in the intervening years was absolutely right. The fare structure is complicated, fares are hugely too high, and of course industrial relations are in a mess. It is a sorry story, and that is a great shame because I am a great lover of our railways, as are many of your Lordships. It is the best way to travel, it is the most environmentally sensible way, and it is the way that I would always inevitably choose. It is a sadness that your Lordships have had to comment on and point to the deficiencies of the network in our country. I have touched on a few relating to the GWR but there are other examples as well.
I personally welcome the announcement by my party today on taking the railways into public ownership but not in an old-fashioned way, by letting the franchises disappear and replacing them, as has happened with a number of companies in the country. That is the way ahead. I just hope that, in five or six years’ time, the Great Western Railway will be replaced by the great British railway.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on this debate and his opening speech, particularly his excoriation of the railway system for the experience of passengers these days under privatisation, which my noble friend Lord Murphy has just underlined. His anecdote about Newport station takes me back even further than 45 years to when I used to visit my Welsh relatives. I quite admired and was rather impressed by Newport station, and even more impressed by the train service at the time. Sadly, that has deteriorated.
I also welcome, like my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Murphy, the announcement by my friend in another place Louise Haigh, whom I hope will soon be Secretary of State for Transport. We need a drastic change in the way we run our system. Since privatisation, the situation has become even more dire for passengers year by year, and we have ended up in effect with the state having responsibility without power and having to meet a significant part of the cost. The system of franchising is broken and successive regulators have failed. We have had the Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of the Rail Regulator and now we have the Office of Rail and Road. It would have been more accurate if they had all been designated with the title of “Offtrack”, because that is what they are. The system has gone downhill ever since privatisation. Whatever the failings beforehand, they have been multiplied since.
This calls for a broader approach to transport policy—although, before I leave rail, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has drawn to my attention that, since the start of the debate and his own speech, there have been 10 cancellations out of Euston station this very day.
The question is wider than rail policy. Transport policy has many objectives. Some of them are contradictory, and they need a cohesive and clear approach, both within and between sectors. Some of these contradictions and problems are macro, such as the state of the railways and the fiasco of HS2, but some are micro. I shall give a personal example. I live seven miles from a railway station. There is a bus service to it from my town of only one bus per hour, and outside rush hour there is only one train per hour, but the first three buses in the morning are scheduled to arrive three minutes after the trains for London and Exeter have departed. A little bit of integration could help because that causes people to rely entirely on their cars, increasing congestion on our inadequate rural roads and increasing pollution.
We need integration within and between sectors. I support more space for cyclists, but some of the provision for cyclists contradicts road use elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just reported one effect of shared space at floating bus stops. We must ensure that pedestrians as well as cyclists are protected and that the provision of cycle lanes—which I support—is done in such a way that it does not increase greater congestion and danger to pedestrians.
We need a real integrated plan. Others have referred to the proposals by the Institution of Civil Engineers for the integration of transport infrastructure; obviously it needs to be broader than infrastructure, but infrastructure is where it starts.
We need to ensure some degree of modal shift away from fossil fuel-using cars and pollution-producing transport. Freight trains, for example, contribute about a quarter of the carbon emissions that the equivalent on the roads would produce. We need to ensure that this is provided for in the infrastructure on the roads as well as on rail.
I shall mention three issues that are dear to my heart but which have not been touched on much today. First, the switch to electric vehicles has slowed down. I was a member of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee when we produced a report about a year ago on this topic. I would like a clear and positive response about reversing that decline and ensuring in particular that there is a market for small electric vehicles in this country.
My second point is on aviation. I declare my vice-presidency of BALPA. If aviation is to continue to supply domestic and short-haul routes, it has to be more environmentally sustainable. That means more investment in sustainable aviation fuel. It also means concentrating on changing the pattern of flights, scheduling and payload, and the way in which our domestic aviation system works. That has hardly received any attention.
Finally, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said on road safety, I was disheartened a few weeks ago when the Minister replied to an Oral Question that he saw no reason to have a road safety strategy. Previous road safety strategies have worked very successfully and saved many lives. We need to integrate driver behaviour, road and vehicle design, road signage, speed and traffic organisation. That is quite difficult, but it needs to be done. To reduce the continuing high level of accidents and danger to pedestrians and car occupants, we need a proper road safety strategy. I hope the Minister can include that in his reply.
I hope that we can see a more integrated approach. I hope that the incoming Government will provide one. The announcement on railways is a good start, but we need a much broader policy that takes in all modes and types of users.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for securing this important debate. He gave us a splendid knock-about speech to start, full of horror stories. These have been added to—stories of failures, inconveniences, cancellations and so forth—in the course of our debate. I would like to take the word “strategy” seriously. Many of the examples that have been deduced today are not pertinent to the question of strategy; they are what I would rather think of as tactical failings. You can have a large number of tactical failings without it necessarily meaning that you do not have a good strategy. That said, I do not think the Government have much of a strategy for transport, but the two are worth distinguishing.
I would like to use the few minutes available to set out some of the principles that ought to underly a transport strategy for this country and the United Kingdom. First, we need to think the right way. We need to think teleologically about transport. The purpose of transport is transport; it is moving people and goods. That movement brings economic and social benefits; these are not inherently the purpose of transport but they are beneficial consequences. Transport also brings pollution, which is not the purpose of transport but simply a negative unwelcome consequence. We need to distinguish between the purpose of what we are doing and the consequences.
Secondly, it is also not the purpose of transport to meet non-transport policy objectives—for example, net zero. As an aside, it is quite interesting that I am probably the first person in this debate to use the words “net zero”. I do not use them in a very positive way; I just give it as an example. Extraneous policy objectives are constraints on how you deliver transport policy; they tell you how you should be doing it rather than why. That is also a necessary clearing of the mind if we are to think about these things properly.
My third point might seem obvious, but it has huge consequences. Public transport works best where you have a concentration of passengers. That means that it works well, largely speaking, in cities and larger towns. Having a density of population is a necessary condition for sustainable public transport. It is possible that transport services can create density, in the way that the Metropolitan Railway created Metro-land, but our anti-development planning policies nowadays sadly make that a thing of the past.
Fourthly, as a consequence of that, we have to be realistic about what we are ever going to be able to offer rural areas in public transport services. The idea that rural areas will have transport services akin to what is on offer in London is simply unrealistic. It is to hold out a pledge that can never be met. This emphasises that, especially in rural areas, there is always going to be a very important role for the private motorcar—and, indeed, for cheap private motorcars. The whole question of electric vehicles and how far we can expect them to spread, especially in rural areas, seems to be determined by their cost. At the moment, they are far too expensive. If we want cheap ones, we are going to have to pay to import them from China. That is basically the dilemma we face. We need to be realistic about that.
My next point might be controversial. Public transport is expensive to run, particularly rail. It costs a great deal of money, and not simply because of the monopoly supply of labour and the way in which the trade unions have been able to extract enormous salaries, especially for drivers, as a result of that. It is very expensive to run and only the fare payer or the taxpayer can pay for it. The money has to come from one of those two sources. It is a profoundly political decision how that expense will be allocated.
My suggestion—unpopular though it may be—is that any national strategy should be directed at maximising fare income. This does not mean high fares for everyone, because transport is a paradigm case of where marginal pricing adds to income—railway operators have understood this since the railways started in the 19th century. The fact is that it costs more or less the same to run the train whether it has passengers on it or not. Even £1 from that last marginal passenger adds to income. Airlines completely understand this. They set and vary their prices from day to day on that basis, in order to maximise revenue—not by having high fares for everyone but by having high fares for some and lower fares for others. We should perhaps learn from that.
I am coming to a conclusion. I would like to say a lot about technology, as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has. That would be another speech, as there is a great deal to say on that.
Finally, I will briefly say something about the nationalisation of rail, as announced today. I am not, despite what noble Lords might think, a mad privatiser of every utility. I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, so I can hardly believe entirely in privately running things. But the announcement today will make no difference whatever. Nearly everything you can pick up and touch in the railways is nationalised already, except the trains. If you take over the train operating companies, which are already puppets of the Department for Transport, you will simply have the same people doing the same jobs. Nothing very much would change, but you would run out of capital to invest at some point. That is the great advantage of privatisation.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on securing this debate and on managing to tee up his party to make its major announcement on rail today. It is a great achievement.
It is a privilege to see the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, in the Chamber today. He is somebody who has done a huge amount for rail and transport infrastructure in the United Kingdom. I was very pleased that he was appointed as chairman of Network Rail. In fact, it was my appointment, so I was delighted to be able to do that.
I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North and as someone who thinks that strategic transport bodies have importance. I do not have a lot of time to talk too much about that today.
This debate has fallen into the trap we so often fall into when we talk about transport, because transport is not about just the rail industry. Today’s debate has been dominated by speeches about railways from nearly all Peers, apart from my noble friend Lord Holmes, who mentioned Network Rail only in passing, right at the end of his speech—I congratulate him on that. Naturally, railways are very important to our transport system, but I am glad that certain people have made reference to buses, and I certainly hope to do so too.
There is no doubt that transport is the artery of any economy. It gets people to work, children to school and food to shops. Everyone depends on it every day. When transport slows, everything slows; when transport stops, everything stops. We saw an example of that during the pandemic, to which quite a few of the problems we face today relate. We almost forget that, just four years ago, the country was virtually at a standstill because of the pandemic. But lots of things are changing in the transport world.
There have been a lot of attacks on privatisation today. It is worth bearing in mind that, before privatisation, there were 700 million journeys a year on our railways; the year before the pandemic, there were 1.8 billion journeys on our railways. We have seen a revolution in the rail industry: it does far more and serves far more people. That happened because private finance was brought into the rail industry, and we were no longer completely reliant on what the Treasury said and did not say. There have been a lot of attacks today on the Treasury, so I say: be careful what you wish for because, if you wholly nationalise, the people who will take back control will be not the Department for Transport but His Majesty’s Treasury. So one should be a little cautious about what one asks for. On the idea that open access will somehow be allowed to continue, with all the other operators being nationalised and operated from the centre, it will be interesting to see how that develops in the longer term.
I very much regret the Government’s decision on stopping HS2. Unfortunately, HS2 became a discussion about speed, but it was never about speed; it was about capacity on our network and freeing up a lot more room for other services on it. Two metro mayors, Andy Street and Andy Burnham, commissioned a report from David Higgins on what a future Government will do, and it will be interesting to see that, whatever happens after a general election. I slightly warn people: I remember that, when I was first elected to the House of Commons, I was told by the BBC that it had done an exit poll in my constituency and I had lost. The returning officer told me otherwise. From that day onwards, I have always believed that the returning officer is a bit more authoritative on election results. Given that, let us be careful about what we see as the future of the rail industry.
The other interesting growth and important change that has taken place is the growth of metro mayors and their importance as far as their impact on transport and transport policy is concerned. As I say, Andy Street and Andy Burnham commissioned work from Sir David Higgins about what should happen as a result of terminating HS2 at Handsacre, and it will be interesting to see exactly what happens with that under any future Government.
On some of the points made earlier about buses, I say that buses are incredibly important to our transport system. I congratulate the Government on the £2 fare cap that they brought in. It has seen patronage start to rise and more people using buses. It is due to end on 31 December this year. A few other things will take place between now and then that may preoccupy parties’ minds, but, if this does end, it will be a very retrograde step for the bus industry. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench can relay the message to the Secretary of State that this should be extended at least to the end of the financial year, so that people are not starting to think now about what they might do if that £2 fare cap were removed.
There was an interesting story in the Times a few weeks ago about how much has already been spent before any decision on the lower Thames crossing has been made:
“National Highways, which manages the strategic road network, has spent more than £267 million on the application alone, while overall spending on the project has surpassed £800 million”
before a spade has been put in the ground. We need to look carefully at how we do long-term planning for these big infrastructure projects. I think we have got the system wrong.
I can see my time has come to an end, so I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that transport is about not just the railways but a lot of other subjects that we have not had time to talk fully about today.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in the gap very briefly. I congratulate my noble friend on his speech. I notice that things in his constituency went his way after my visit: his deficit was turned into a majority, and I am glad.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on this debate, not just because he was my pair when I was Transport Secretary but also because of his long and abiding interest in, and knowledge of, transport—I mean that very generally. He has been a great asset in both Houses on this subject.
The transport debate has moved on. The Guardian, from which I get all my news about what is happening behind closed doors inside the Labour Party, says that Labour vows to nationalise the rail network within five years of winning the election. The shadow Minister says that
“this is not just ideology, it’s a detailed reform plan”.
Frankly, the less ideology, the better. We will wait to see the reform plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, criticised very much what has happened under privatisation, but I am sure he would agree that, in the time of British Rail, not everything was fantastic. It was not a time of unparalleled industrial peace when all trains ran on time. There were divisions inside the trade union movement, as he well knows, on the way forward. I had a number of meetings with the heads of ASLEF and NUR that were made memorable by the fact that neither of them spoke to each other and they sat at opposite ends of the table. That did not seem to me to be industrial co-operation as I knew it.
One of the major problems was, obviously, a lack of investment, which is what we had to tackle. The Treasury was not interested, frankly, in financing luxury hotels, for example—who can blame it? That is one of the reasons why, in my so-called privatisation measures, we got rid of that and put them into the private sector. In the main, people have not complained about that. I do not think anyone is pressing the Labour Party to take on Gleneagles as a publicly operated hotel.
The important point that I would like to make about privatisation is just this: when we privatised, we did not bring in a lot of outside experts to run these companies; we appointed and recruited them from inside. There were people like Peter Thompson in the NFC and Keith Stuart in Associated British Ports. There was tremendous talent inside the companies, but that talent was not being used. That is an important point about privatisation which has not been recognised. We set that management free. I heard the criticism, but it should also be recognised that, when this has been done well—I accept that it has not always been—the public have benefited from it.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
My Lords, I also speak in the gap and thank noble Lords for allowing me to do so. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Snape, on this debate. I will not be talking about railways, buses or anything in relation to that; I shall be talking about drones. We are on the verge of a massive impact of the use of drones in the civil context. We have had it in the military context, of course, in Ukraine, Israel and the like, and there is a real need here to bring the CAA together with the Ministry of Transport.
Here, I should declare my interest, as listed in the register, in general aviation and associated business interests. A number of experiments and systems have been used over the past three to four months in the north-east of England, and they have not been very successful at all. A pilot scheme, a corridor from Wansbeck to Alnwick to Berwick, has affected general aviation in such a way that other aircraft cannot fly. Drones were going to be used five to 15 times a day, but because of weather it did not happen. We are now going back to another kind of pilot scheme, along the same route and along the River Tyne, which will be conducted for six months. It will affect general aviation in a major way. Looking ahead, drones will be used extensively and there is therefore a need to put together a strategy that delivers sensibly and safely.
Over the years, a lot of work has been done on aircraft safety, and the conclusion reached is that any aircraft that hits organic matter—birds, for example—will probably survive, but if it hits a drone is very unlikely to survive at all; the result would be catastrophic. We have here something new, and it is going to happen and will affect us all. Speaking as a pilot—my friend and colleague the Minister is also a pilot—I can say that this issue really needs to be addressed. The potential is massive, so the issues need to be sorted out and the pilot schemes need to be done in a way that is satisfactory to all.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for giving us such a broad canvas for our debate today. It has left us free to roam over fertile territory, pointing out the failings of current policy and the daily transport crises that fail travellers. It is very easy pickings because there is so much to choose from.
Many noble Lords have used this debate to highlight important issues arising from their own experiences. I especially welcomed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on issues that particularly affect people with disability. I note my sadness that I am the only woman speaking in this debate, because a good public transport system is an equality issue. Women and girls are more likely to use public transport than to have cars. My noble friend Lord Goddard referred to ticketing, as did many others. He spoke particularly about Avanti and praised its on-train staff for dealing with the pressure they face so expertly in their responses. I second that by referring to Great Western staff; the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and I suffer the vagaries of the Great Western service. Just to illustrate a point: while we have been sat here, four trains have been shortened from 10 to five carriages, making all the associated trains uncomfortable, too.
Transport is fundamental to the success of the economy, despite all the talk of working from home, using Zoom and so on. Failing transport networks stifle the economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said. Wherever we look, our transport infrastructure is failing. The Centre for Cities estimates that that costs our economy £23 billion a year. Our roads, both local and national highways, are seriously congested and in urgent need of repairs. Now, I am a Liberal Democrat and I like talking about potholes, but potholes have become a national topic of conversation because of local government underfunding. Our motorways are heavily congested. The Government therefore invented smart motorways, which are supposed to rely on sophisticated surveillance equipment to keep drivers safe. Just this week, however, we hear that this equipment is subject to frequent failures.
Bus services have declined dramatically, leaving rural areas as bus deserts. The youngest, oldest and poorest in our society in particular are left without any affordable means of getting to work, to education, to training, to doctors’ appointments and to see family and friends. Although the £2 fare is welcome, like so much that this Government do, it is short term, haphazard and certainly not strategic. Money to incentivise zero-emission buses is welcome but, outside London, there are many areas where this has hardly made any impression at all. Above all, there is the uncertainty of funding, with four separate funding streams for buses. What we need, for a start, is one integrated system and more transparency to make sure that the money gets spent properly.
Train services are a national tragedy. When we ask questions here, Ministers always recite how much taxpayers have subsidised rail services since the pandemic. They overlook the subsidy that taxpayers give to road building and maintenance, and that every train passenger benefits all those who do not or cannot take the train by taking themselves off the roads. The nation that invented the railways has proved itself incapable of building a modern high-speed line in an efficient and sensible manner. We have had years of government contortions and “will they, won’t they?”, when first one leg and then the other leg of HS2 north of Birmingham was cancelled. At a stroke, that cancellation added vast amounts of money to future contractors’ estimates, because they will factor in the financial risk of project cancellation. We are told that, unlike on the high-speed lines that we see across the world, HS2 trains will travel on standard rail lines north of Birmingham, but they will of course have to travel more slowly than classic trains because those trains will not tilt.
Recently, we discussed the crisis facing train manufacturers Alstom and Hitachi because of the stop-go approach to rail investment. Thousands of jobs are at risk, with the Government scrabbling around at the last minute to try to save them.
Instead of HS2, we have the hotchpotch of Network North. Individual projects are probably very sensible and worthy, but there has been a lack of consultation, no coherent overall strategic plan, no proper discussion with local mayors, and so on. Of the £36 billion allocated to HS2, £11.6 billion will go to Network North; that is a major cut in funding for rail. The Rail Industry Association complains that there has been no assessment of value for money and risk, and that many of these are simply reannouncements, with only five new projects.
Just look at the current problems that face LNER, for example, with its planned new timetable, which will reduce services to key towns such as Berwick. The plans are now being put on hold for the second time because, according to Network Rail, they are undeliverable. There has been a lack of coherent consultation. Across the whole sector, investors and professionals are crying out for certainty and an end to U-turns and the stop-start approach to funding.
The Government had some good ideas, but they have dropped most of them. Theresa May made a bold and laudable decision when she fixed 2030 as the date for phasing out new petrol and diesel vehicle sales, but a single parliamentary by-election changed government policy and the date for that decision. As a result, the whole of our valuable automotive industry was wrong-footed.
There is no proper leadership on a sustainable charging network for electric vehicles and there is a lack of incentive to attract those who are less well-off into EV ownership. It is no wonder we are far from the world-leading image produced by Boris Johnson on EV manufacture and take-up.
In 2021, we had the Williams-Shapps report for rail reform. In 2022, in the Queen’s Speech, we had a Transport Bill announced, but it was never introduced. We now have the draft Rail Reform Bill, which has only just started scrutiny in the House of Commons and will have no chance of becoming law before the general election. Now we have Labour talking about a five-year lead-up to nationalisation, which will be five years of uncertainty—the last thing the rail industry needs.
We have a long way to go now. We need certainty and dramatic change in our bus services, our EV charging, our automotive manufacturing, our railways and much more. We need heaps more awareness of the value of investment, rather than the cost of each individual minute aspect of it. We need less political interference; we need investment, vision and less short-term bean counting.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on introducing this debate in his own informed and inimitable way, and join those who have paid tribute to him for his contribution over many decades to the transport debate in this country. I also thank former Secretaries of State for contributing to this debate and I particularly endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McLaughlin, about my noble friend Lord Hendy, who unfortunately is not able to contribute to this debate; it would have been nice to hear from him. Those present also remind me of those absent, and one of those is, of course, Lord Rosser, who was a much-loved Member of this House and a very great, moderate and sensible trade union general secretary.
It would be nice to have a coherent plan for transport, but in the last 14 years we have not achieved that. We had the impact of austerity, which led to massive cuts in local government budgets. I saw it in Cumbria, where we had fewer professional highways staff and where planned maintenance on our roads was cut to the bone, so we inevitably ended up with a chronic problem of potholes. The Government have done a lot of announcing about special funds for potholes, in a sort of patchwork attempt to cover up the consequences of what they did 10 years ago. In fact, that will only cover about half of what is needed to have a proper system of planned maintenance for our highways.
Austerity also brought big cuts in bus subsidies. When I was a Cumbria county councillor, we were forced to abandon bus subsidies for commercial services altogether. As a result, bus travel outside London has collapsed. The annual number of journeys since 2009 has gone down from 2.4 billion to 1.6 billion—a third lost.
Boris Johnson realised, to be fair to him, that this was a big problem. His Bus Back Better White Paper was full of typically bold promise and ambition, but, as with so much else, delivery was another matter. This is a serious issue—it might be even more serious than the railways—because the bus crisis affects the young, the elderly and the poor most of all. For a social democrat like me, we must do better and find a better policy.
The solution stares us in the face. London has seen little of the decline experienced in other parts of England. Why? Because, instead of the philosophy of provision being driven by free market competition, bus services in London are a fine example of public/private partnership, with a franchising model that works. This eliminates competitive cherry picking on bus routes that are highly profitable and allows cross-subsidy of those routes where there is less revenue.
The difficulty with this problem that Boris Johnson recognised is that the Government have never found time to legislate on it. This year, to be frank, the Government judged the pedicabs Bill more important than doing something to remedy our bus service problems. I regret very much the way that government policy has tilted against public transport since the Uxbridge by-election. The Government have tried to pose as a defender of the motorist against sinister socialist plots—this is nonsense. I am a strong believer in the freedom that cars bring. I was brought up in a non-car owning household and realised, with great wonderment and affection, how a car enabled me to travel to parts of the Lake District near my home that I had never been to before. As a councillor for Wigton in the last decade, I also saw how, in certain places where public transport is rotten, people depend on their cars. The care worker who is on the minimum wage—if that—depends on a car to do her job. Let us have no more of this culture-war nonsense.
We need, of course, sensible policies in towns and cities. We realised in the 1970s that there was no financially affordable or environmentally acceptable way in which road building could solve congestion problems. We did not want to become like America. When I was a young Labour councillor in Oxford in the 1970s, we championed what we called a balanced transport policy. We brought in park and ride from the outskirts, and bus lanes to get buses into town quicker. I remember how much opposition there was. Traders thought this was the end of the world. Professionals objected to not being able to drive their car to work as easily as they had done. But, when people saw the benefits, the objections quickly subsided. We could do much more in cities to improve bus reliability and efficiency without vast increases in public spending.
The same opportunity exists on our railways. I was never a dogmatic opponent of all privatisation, but I thought that separating the natural monopoly of the infrastructure from competing services that use it, while it might work well in telecoms, was a much more difficult proposition with railways. That has proved to be the case. The growing problems with privatisation have been evident for two decades. We had the collapse of Railtrack in 2001. We had the problem of franchisees overbidding for contracts and hoping that a weak Government would let them off the hook. My noble friend Lord Adonis told them to get lost, and their franchises were taken into public ownership. In 2018, the railways were unable to produce a timetable that worked. Since Covid, there has been a vast increase in costs and a real decline in quality of service. As a frequent Avanti user, although not quite as frequent as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I still cannot understand why it has been allowed to keep its franchise.
What Labour has announced today is fundamentally right—that we intend to bring the major part of the railway under unified public control and ownership. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley: we must take legislative action on this quickly, in our first term of office. A unified railway will save hundreds of millions of pounds by getting all parts of the system working together. It will end the costly arguments about delay attribution, and I hope that it will release the railway from the micro-control of civil servants who are currently making decisions about services and spending. It will not be a return to British Rail. Open access will be retained; freight services will continue to be operated by the private sector; the lease-holding arrangements for rolling stock will remain in place. This is a pragmatic response to the failings of the existing system. I hope that it will allow the kind of long-term approach that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, talked about.
Again, there is not much difference between the Williams-Shapps plan and Labour’s proposals, which is why Keith Williams has backed them today. This provides an opportunity to establish a new, lasting consensus about the way railways should be run, and I hope that the Conservatives will take that view if they lose the next election.
Another area where consensus needs to be struck is on the issue of high-speed rail. After the Prime Minister’s decision, we are left with a high-speed line with apparently no public funds to build its London terminus at Euston, and a connection of HS2 to the west coast main line which makes the problem of train congestion to the north worse, not better, than it is at present. What was envisaged as a revolutionary transformation has, in effect, morphed into a high-speed tube extension from Old Oak Common to Birmingham. It has destroyed the integrated rail plan. In its place, we got the shoddiest White Paper I have ever seen from a Government, on the Network North plan; a set of incoherent proposals cobbled together in Downing Street without any expert input from transport people. This is no way to run a country.
Labour is not going to go for headline-grabbing announcements, but we need a carefully considered decision based on detailed work about where we are. There we have it: we must have a coherent policy at long last, replacing 14 years of dither and delay interspersed with reckless decisions. The country deserves a lot better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond for the Government on this debate on the transport system, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for tabling. I also thank noble Lords who have taken part for their insightful and wide-ranging points. I will do my best in the time allotted to me to address those in my response.
This country has a proud transport history, spanning great maritime successes, the birth of steam-powered engines and the creation of one of the safest road networks anywhere in the world. Our heritage inspires us to look forward. We continue to strive towards an excellent transport system that supports people and businesses, wherever they live and work.
We are not only managing the transport system we inherited but taking steps to make it fit for the future, seizing opportunities for transport to unleash economic growth and improve people’s lives. We are mending the potholes, making life easier for drivers and reforming our railways. We are capitalising on our world-leading research and innovation capabilities by legislating to make the UK one of the best places in the world to invest in, produce and use self-driving vehicles. We are giving local and regional leaders the powers and funding they need to deliver transport systems which get people and businesses moving across the country.
Naturally, there are forces that have had significant consequences on transport and those who use it. These include the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the historic high levels of inflation which have impacted economies across the globe. These challenges have left their mark on the ways in which people travel. They have also impacted the cost of building infrastructure and running services, but thanks to our interventions we are well on the road to recovery.
In the three years after the pandemic began, the Government provided more than £45 billion of operational funding to keep the railway running. Now, passenger numbers are back at 80% of pre-Covid levels. To tackle the cost of living crisis, we have capped bus fares at £2 and launched two “Great British Rail Sales”. We have cancelled planned inflation increases on fuel duty and, from 2022, temporarily cut the rate by 5p, saving the average car driver around £250 in total since then. We are supporting drivers through our plan for drivers and ensuring we can reach our net-zero goals in a proportionate and pragmatic way. Thanks to the difficult decisions we have made on HS2, we are now redirecting £36 billion of investment towards rail, roads and local transport as part of our Network North plans, allowing us to benefit more people in more places, more quickly.
This Government have the practical and long-term vision to improve and nurture the transport system in the future. Allow me to outline some of our plans in detail. On rail, we are acutely aware of the need to bring the railways into the 21st century. Vital to this is our ongoing work to upgrade the existing rail network, to improve rail operators’ performance and to make the railways more accessible to all. We have published a draft rail reform Bill and are pushing ahead with a range of non-legislative reform measures. We are continuing to deliver HS2 between London and the West Midlands, boosting economic growth, improving journey times and adding much-needed capacity on one of the UK’s most congested rail routes.
On trains, I noted this morning the announcement that Labour proposes an ideological nationalisation, with no detail beyond a soundbite and no response to how nationalisation will make a difference to things that people really care about: reliability and affordability. There was no real detail of what Labour proposes to do with the parts of the industry that are profitable, including the rolling stock operators and the open-access operators. The rolling stock operators have used private finance to fund 8,000 new carriages since 2010. The popular open-access operators have reconnected communities and given them direct services to London. Either Labour proposes to nationalise this part of the sector, or it is not serious about nationalisation and it is simply a fig leaf to appease their union paymasters.
All Labour’s current policy to nationalise passenger rail contracts will deliver is baking in some of the existing challenges, such as too much involvement from Whitehall in running the railways, taking on the parts of the sector that require greatest public subsidy, with no plan to grow passenger numbers—the only way to reduce subsidy. It also means that rail workers will become public sector workers, and so their pay rises will need to be in line with those of nurses and teachers, rather than in line with private sector wage growth. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Snape, we will indeed be “the laughing stock” of the western world.
We have set out a 30-point plan for drivers, bringing about smoother journeys and easier parking, stopping unfair enforcement and inconsiderate driving, and helping the transition to zero-emission driving. Spades are in the ground on our second road investment strategy, and we are preparing plans for the third road investment strategy.
At the local level, we are devolving powers and budgets away from central government through measures including the local transport fund, city region sustainable transport settlements, devolution deals and trailblazer settlements. This is giving leaders the funding and powers they need to get people and business moving. We are investing in a long-term sustainable future for buses, including more than £4.5 billion to support and improve bus services since March 2020. We are investing in active travel infrastructure, including the active travel fund and the second cycling and walking investment strategy.
We have set out a clear vision and ambitions for the future of the British maritime sector, focused on growing our economic impact, keeping people safe and protecting our environment. The UK SHORE programme alone is providing £206 million to accelerate the technology needed to decarbonise the domestic maritime sector.
We have established a strategic framework for aviation focused on innovation, sustainability and efficiency. Our updated airspace modernisation strategy will enable quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and increase UK airspace capacity. We have set a road map for how drones and novel electric aircraft can deliver better public services and green economic growth. In November last year, we saw the first ever transatlantic 100% sustainable aviation fuel flight by a commercial airliner, from Heathrow to New York, made possible with government funding.
Finally, on the environment, we have dedicated over £22 billion to help the UK meet its 2050 net-zero target, and we are ensuring that our transport system will be resilient to climate change. Network Rail alone will be investing around £2.4 billion in England and Wales over the next five years to improve resilience to extreme weather and climate change. However, these ambitious plans are not for government alone. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver a world-class transport system across the country. We engage closely with our friends across the world and with international bodies to deliver frameworks and standards, to share and contribute to best practice and research, and to drive forward global action on decarbonisation and the environment. We consult broadly and deeply with industry, civil society, academia and the general public to shape and deliver our plans.
With that, I turn my attention to points raised during the debate. Quite a lot of points were raised, and I will try to get though as many as I possibly can in the time left. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked about rail performance in his opening speech. The department has been clear that the current performance of the railway is unacceptable. The industry needs to make significant improvement to deliver the punctual and reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve. That is why the department has regular high-level meetings on punctuality and reliability with both Network Rail and representatives of the train operators to hold rail partners to account. All private-sector operators have now transitioned over to National Rail contracts, which include a revenue-incentive mechanism, encouraging train operators to minimise cancellations and short formations unless absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, also referred to Hitachi. The department is holding intensive discussions with Hitachi to find a sustainable solution for train manufacturing at its Newton Aycliffe plant. Train operators are subject to procurement law as they operate under contracts directly awarded by the department. This is complex and difficult. There are no simple solutions, and any solution needs to be legally robust and sustainable for the long term.
The noble Lords, Lord Snape, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Liddle, talked about bus service cuts and ongoing support for the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about the less well off using them; I can assure him that I use buses regularly. The Government have announced unprecedented funding for bus services, totalling over £4.5 billion since March 2020. This includes £2 billion to prevent reductions to bus services following the pandemic and over £1 billion allocated in 2022 to help local authorities deliver their bus service improvements.
The noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Liddle, talked about bus strategy. The aim of the national bus strategy is to make buses more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated and cheaper. The strategy required all local transport authorities to publish bus service improvement plans, setting out local plans for the changes in bus services that are needed, driven by what passengers and would-be passengers want.
The noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Birt, talked about road investment. The Government are investing £24 billion from 2020 to 2025 to operate, maintain and enhance our strategic road network of motorways and major A roads. In the last four years we have completed 23 major enhancement schemes across all the English regions, including three on the A19 in the north-east and, only last month, the A585 Windy Harbour scheme in Lancashire. The road investment strategy 3 will build on the priorities and outcomes of the first two road periods, adjusting focus where necessary to tackle the next big priorities for improvement and achieve a long-term strategic vision for the network.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, talked about enabling economic growth. Growing the economy is a priority for the Government, and a secure, reliable, well-connected and integrated transport network is a vital tool for growth. It allows individuals to access more jobs, education, services and amenities, and allows firms to access wider labour pools and share knowledge and supply chains, boosting productivity in the long run.
The noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Fowler, talked about rail industrial action. The industry is facing a serious financial challenge. Reform is essential to deliver a better railway for passengers. Since coming into office, the Transport Secretary and Rail Minister have met with the rail unions and industry to facilitate discussions, which have resulted in pay offers being accepted by the RMT, TSSA and Unite unions in exchange for negotiations on reform. ASLEF is now the only rail union that continues disruptive national-level strikes.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned decarbonisation. The Government expect both electrification and alternative technologies to play a role in net zero by 2050. That is why my department has delivered more than 1,250 miles of electrification in Great Britain since 2010.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, talked about rail reform. We are committed to rail reform and delivering improvements for customers ahead of legislation. We recently completed barcode ticketing for all national network stations and announced a 75% rail freight growth target by 2050. In line with Network North and wider stakeholder engagement, the Great British Railways transition team continues to develop the long-term strategy for rail. We need to ensure that the strategy reflects both the realities of the railways and the clear direction set by Network North.
The noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Liddle, talked about holding Avanti West Coast to account. The department takes performance very seriously and holds all franchised operators to account for the service they provide. As part of the national rail contract, Avanti West Coast has a series of challenging but achievable targets to meet, which the department monitors, and officials continue to closely monitor and review Avanti West Coast progress to a sustained recovery. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, mentioned the Avanti West Coast rest day working agreement. On 13 March 2024, Avanti West Coast secured a 12-month rest day working agreement with ASLEF. The new agreement will support Avanti West Coast’s driver training programme as it transitions to its new Hitachi fleet over the coming months.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Berkeley, referred to rail fares, ticketing and retail. We have already made progress on fares reform, launching flexible season tickets in 2021, delivering on our commitment to extend single-leg pricing to the vast majority of LNER’s network, launching a trial of simpler fares on LNER, and announcing that we will extend contactless pay-as-you-go to an additional 53 stations in the south-east by spring this year.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Whitty, talked about decarbonisation. This Government have done more than any other to promote walking and cycling, and we remain fully committed to the vision that half of all journeys in towns and cities are walked or cycled by 2030. Over £3 billion is projected to be invested in active travel up to 2025. Despite the challenging financial climate, since 1 June 2023 Active Travel England has played an important role as a statutory consultee within the planning system. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords talked more on decarbonisation. The UK has decarbonised faster than any other major economy, more than halving emissions since 1990. Our credible, cross-cutting plan to decarbonise all transport is at the heart of our ambition.
On a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, there are now more than 1 million battery electric cars on UK roads, which is evidence that more and more drivers are switching to electric vehicles. We continue to work with the industry via the automotive transformation fund to support the creation of an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, talked about access for all. The Access for All programme has provided accessible, step-free routes at more than 240 stations and small-scale improvements at around 1,500 more since 2006. As part of our recent Network North announcement, the Government confirmed that £350 million will be made available to improve accessibility at our train stations. On bus accessibility, we are requiring operators across Great Britain to provide audible and visible information on their services. Our new accessible information regulations will require almost every local service to provide audible and visible next stop announcements. The £4.65 million accessible information grant will help the smallest operators to comply. The department has driven change through its support for the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 and through updated best practice guidance for local licensing authorities, including on supporting an inclusive service. However, I note what the noble Lord said in relation to particular areas of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, also talked about technology performance. It is right that road users should expect high standards when it comes to managing and responding quickly to incidents on the motorways. National Highways has rolled out new stopped vehicle detection technology on “all lane running” smart motorways, which can detect a stationary vehicle and alert an operator who can close lanes and dispatch a traffic officer.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, said, particularly about Newport station—much of what he said existed under British Rail. However, as we know, it is now devolved to the Welsh Government and has been nationalised as Transport for Wales, so I am afraid that any comment on that should come from the Welsh Government. However, I will say that Transport for Wales last year was reported to have the worst customer satisfaction for train operators in the whole of the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about aviation and decarbonisation. The jet zero strategy sets out the Government’s approach to achieving net zero by 2050 in UK aviation. It focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel while maximising the opportunities that decarbonisation brings for the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of road safety. While the UK has some of the safest roads in the world, any death is a tragedy, which is why we continue working tirelessly to improve road safety for everyone.
The noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Liddle, talked about rural transport. The Government recognise the importance of transport provision in rural areas and are committed to finding solutions that ensure viable and improved transport.
In a very well-informed speech, the noble Lord, Lord McLaughlin, talked about rail passenger numbers and revenue. All substantive financial risks of rail services sit with government. Between 2021 and 2022-23, the taxpayer provided funding of £45.9 billion for the operation of the rail industry—just over £1,500 per household. He also talked about the HS2/Network North decision. The HS2 programme accounted for over one-third of all the Government’s transport investments, doing little to improve the journeys that people make the most. That is why the Government cancelled phases 2a and 2b—the western leg—of HS2.
Noble Lords made many other points. I will quickly mention the Lower Thames Crossing, which the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, mentioned. As the scheme is a live planning application, there are sensitivities in what I can say and it would be inappropriate to say anything that could prejudice that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned general aviation, which was a refreshing change in the debate. The department actively supports GA in achieving key government objectives. I hear what he says and understand his concern regarding drones. There has been a CAA airspace review. The rules are well defined for the use of drones but I acknowledge his concern.
I have come to the end. I think there are one or two other contributions that should be responded to. I will do that in writing. I thank noble Lords for their attendance and their contributions.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, given at his customary express speed—far exceeding any Avanti train that leaves Euston on the west coast main line. I was intrigued by his attack on today’s proposals from the Labour Party to renationalise the train operating companies. Coming from a Government who have renationalised no fewer than seven train operating companies in the past couple of years, we may well depend on his expertise if the result of the general election goes the way we would like.
I pay tribute to the two former Secretaries of State for Transport who participated. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us of the occasional tensions between the two major railway unions, the National Union of Railwaymen as was and the drivers’ union. He might reflect that the one thing that united the pair of them was attacking the third railway union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, so tensions are by no means unusual. The noble Lord, Lord McLaughlin, quite rightly reminded us of the occasional vagaries of the polling system. I do not know whether he is tempted to head for the bookmakers to back his views but, if he does, I should think he would get fairly long odds.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. It is a subject I am sure we shall return to in the near future.
Gambling Advertising
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship on problem gambling, and in particular the risk posed by the exposure of children to gambling advertising.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, including the Minister, who are taking part in this debate. I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, which was set up to press for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Lords committee on gambling. I am delighted that very many of those recommendations, either in whole or in part, were included in the Government’s White Paper. However, except for the Gambling Commission taking a closer look at bonus offers such as free bets and spins, and the Premier League’s voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling logos, the White Paper proposes very little action in respect of gambling advertising.
The Gambling Act 2005 liberalised gambling advertising, and now on Twitter/X alone there are 1 million UK gambling ads a year. Gambling companies’ annual spend on marketing now exceeds £1.5 billion. As the Lords committee noted, companies would not spend so much if it did not work, leading to more gambling and greater risk of harm. Yet very little action is proposed. Surely any Government should have been worried to read just this weekend in the Observer, under the headline “UK children bombarded by gambling ads and images online”:
“Young people feel their internet activity is overwhelmed by betting promotions and similar content”.
If the Government are not worried, other people certainly are. Opinion polls show that the vast majority of the public want a clamp-down on gambling advertising, including Conservative supporters. A very recent opinion poll found that 77% of Conservative councillors agree that tighter restrictions on gambling advertising would reduce gambling-related harm. With the Government doing very little, others are taking action. In March, Sheffield City Council joined over 80 other English councils in restricting gambling advertising on land, buildings, vehicles and even bus stops, websites and newspapers they own. The Mayor of London says that he intends to end gambling ads across public transport in the city. I hope he gets on with it quickly, as one gambling operator is currently advertising that TfL tube and train carriages are now casinos, with bus-stop ads saying: “Your bus is now a casino”. In sport, the absence of government action has led 35 football clubs to decide to go it alone and join the Big Step’s campaign to end gambling advertising in football. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so out of step with all these voices and seemingly so in step with the gambling industry?
I suspect public concern is about to rise because, in July, the Gambling Commission will release new figures about gambling harm. The Gambling Minister in the other place has already indicated that they are likely to show that 1.3 million people will classify as “problem gamblers” and that a further 6 million are at risk. If confirmed, these figures are far higher than those used to inform the Government’s work on their White Paper. This is a real cause for concern, further strengthening the call for action.
If public opinion does not persuade the Government, there are many other justifications for action, including research evidence. When he responds, I suspect the Minister may be somewhat dismissive of the research and claim—as the White Paper does—that it does not show a causal link between advertising and gambling harm. I am prepared to accept that this is largely true, but it does not mean that the research evidence does not support the case for greater action. Academics are clear that, in social science research, causal links are rarely even possible, but they are equally clear that the research findings justify a much tougher stance against gambling advertising. Some 50 academics recently called for “badly needed” restrictions on the promotion of gambling products. They drew attention especially to the unprecedented numbers of young people being exposed to gambling ads via the internet and television, and concluded that
“it has become quite clear that the gambling products being offered and the ways in which they are promoted are harmful to individual and family health and damaging to national life”.
Reviewing the evidence, the Advertising Standards Authority accepted that some studies were robust enough to support a link between advertising and gambling behaviour. The Government’s White Paper itself points to research showing that gambling advertising and marketing leads to people starting to gamble, to gamble more and to recommence gambling. With all this evidence, it is bizarre that the Government are not taking more action.
Unlike us, other countries do not seem to struggle with the evidence, despite having far less of it. Ipsos and researcher Dr Rossi have identified 496 published research papers about gambling marketing here, which is more than the combined number of similar ones in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain. Yet on their evidence they have chosen almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government’s assessment of our evidence is so different from neighbouring countries with similar research findings? Does the Minister really believe that there would be 1.3 million people classified as problem gamblers in the absence of gambling advertising?
Frankly, our Government seem confused. In one breath, they say that action is not justified because there is little causal evidence linking advertising to harm but, in another, without causal evidence, they welcome the removal of gambling logos on the front of football shirts as a harm-reduction policy. The Government’s position simply does not make sense.
The Government have accepted that gambling-related harm should be treated as a public health issue, so they should be adopting the precautionary principle and, on the huge weight of evidence, taking greater action. Yet, the Minister in the Commons said, on advertising causing harm, that,
“if new evidence suggests that we need to go further, we will look at this again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/24; col. 142WH.]
Can the Minister explain what more the Government need before they will act?
I believe that a public health approach to gambling should lead to significant curbs on advertising and a ban on direct marketing, an end to inducements such as so-called free bets, and the removal of gambling sponsorship in sport.
Time does not permit me to detail all that I think should be done. Noting that estimates suggest that as many as 60,000 children suffer gambling harm, I will end with just one area where I believe urgent action is needed: so-called content marketing, which a Guardian headline recently described as “‘Sneaky’ social media ads … luring young into gambling”. Just one example will suffice. A social media post with the heading, “When the barman asks if you want another one”, is followed by a photo of Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp giving a thumbs-up. That is all there is to it.
This simple, humorous post was by Paddy Power, but there are literally hundreds of them, using cartoons and famous people, posted online by gambling companies all the time. In just one weekend, online gambling ads received 34 million views. Over half were content marketing. Research shows that such posts are particularly appealing to young people and that followers of gambling companies’ online posts are, disproportionately, young people.
Yet the voluntary code governing advertising says that advertisements should be clearly seen as such. I have met with the ASA, which oversees the code, and shown it numerous examples of content marketing that clearly breach the code. So I hope the Minister will agree that the time has come for a complete review of the code and its enforcement, including deciding whether self-regulation really is the right approach.
It is worrying that so many young people know the names of gambling companies, follow them online, think that gambling is part of growing up and see it as part of the enjoyment of sport. Gambling advertising encourages more people to gamble and to develop gambling harms. The figures are alarming, as are the consequences to individuals and our society. The threat to our children should be enough on its own to compel the Government to act. No primary legislation is required, as the Gambling Act 2005 gives the Secretary of State all the powers she needs to regulate gambling advertising as she sees fit. So my simple question is: will the Government get on and do something?
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for initiating this debate and pay tribute to his tenacious pursuit of this particular subject. He and I have worked together for quite some time and served on your Lordships’ Select Committee on gambling harm a few years ago. I declare my own interest as the CEO of the Association of Conservative Clubs. We have several hundred clubs throughout the UK, all of which have gaming machines, play bingo and have small-scale lotteries. I also declare my interest as the chairman of the National Conservative Draws Society, an established society lottery with an income or turnover in excess of £1 million each year.
We have been here before, speaking about gambling advertising and gambling harm, and we have talked before about how to protect children from the harm of advertising. I can recall discussing the subject of loot boxes back in 2016, and I am sure the subject will be mentioned again today. The latest game is “Fortnite”, whose loot boxes I say will be the next ones we will be talking about, in a few months or years to come.
I will today address not just the point that gambling advertising is too much; I think everybody here knows and agrees that we see far more gambling advertising now than we used to. If there is more gambling advertising, there will be more people who gamble. If there are more people who gamble, the 0.5% of people who suffer from gambling harm will increase, and the 0.9% of young people who suffer from gambling harm and have a gambling problem will also increase.
The point I will make today is not that gambling advertising is on the increase, and that more people gamble as a result. I will talk specifically about one area where we might be able to help: children who are suffering from gambling harm, having perhaps been exposed to too much gambling advertising. Problem gambling rises each year; advertising spend on gambling rises each year; and gambling among young people—that is, ages under 18; even under 11 years of age in some cases—is rising as well.
I read the Gambling Commission’s 2023 report on young people and their gambling behaviour, attitudes and awareness. It has an interesting section on young people gambling using a parent’s account. It said:
“Overall, young people were more likely to use their parent’s or guardian’s accounts for any type of online gambling with their permission (6 percent), rather than without (2 percent). When looking at specific gambling accounts, young people were more likely to have played National Lottery games online with their parent’s or guardian’s permission (5 percent), than without (2 percent). Similarly, young people were more likely to have played on gambling websites or placed bets online with their parent’s or guardian’s permission (5 percent) compared with those without (2 percent)”.
We can conclude, therefore, that some parents give permission for their children to gamble, and that it is possible for children to gamble without their parent’s or guardian’s permission, meaning that some young people were playing either via their own account or by hacking into a parent’s account.
Something has gone wrong here with security measures. It should not be possible for a young person to gamble under their own name and details, and it should not be right they do it under their parent’s or guardian’s accounts. I suggest it would be a good idea to mandate a two-factor identification process to be put in place on all online gambling sites, so that if a child is trying to gamble without their parents’ knowledge, their parents’ mobile phones could be notified. This process could deter the child by making it harder for them to get online. Secondly, could the industry do more to provide information and education about the dangers of gambling to children and parents alike?
In terms of how this relates to marketing and advertising, if gambling operators have not got the correct safety measures in place to protect children from accessing their products—and this includes the National Lottery—they should not be able to advertise their services, or even operate until their product can be shown to be safe. We would shut down a bar if under-18s were found to be systematically slipping through and purchasing alcohol undetected. I do not really see the difference here at all. That might be something to think about.
Perhaps we might also touch on the mixed messages we sometimes send about the sports personalities involved with the gambling industry; at the same time, we are just about to wave off our team to France for the Olympic Games, which is almost solely supported by gambling, through the National Lottery.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for initiating this debate, and for all the work and commitment he gives to tackling gambling harm. I too have interests to declare: I am a trustee of GambleAware, I work with the Behavioural Insights Team on its advisory group, and I am also involved with Peers for Gambling Reform.
When I grew up, I had virtually no knowledge or recognition that gambling happened. No child or young person today would be able to say that. Recently published research, commissioned by GambleAware, shows that children and young people described their online spaces as “saturated” with gambling content, which is being seen in their everyday activities, even if they are not looking at supposed gambling sites.
Gambling advertising and content from influencers and footballers were identified as a potential pathway to gambling and are experienced by young people. The bright, eye-catching nature of adverts draw children and young people in. A 14 year-old girl said:
“The ads … make it look like a really fun activity that has no consequence outside of using or winning some money”.
For far too many children and young people, gambling has become normalised. It is simply part of their life. If you ever go to a football match, as I do, you cannot escape the gambling adverts and the involvement of all the spectators in either taking notice or decidedly trying not to take notice of it. There is clear evidence now that this normalisation is a factor in people becoming addicted.
The impact on children and young people is stark. Recall of gambling adverts among 13 to 25 year-olds is positively associated with frequent gambling. Those with the greatest exposure to adverts are 2.3 times more likely to experience problem gambling later in their lives. Marketing is now almost four times more appealing to children and young people than it is to adults, so this is an issue that really hits children and young people.
What should the Government be doing? They certainly need tougher restrictions in sport. There needs to be a stadium and a shirt ban, and the Government should push sports organisations to publish the sports sponsorship code of conduct that they say have completed so that it can be scrutinised. The Government should ban pre-watershed advertising. The Australians, the Germans and the Irish have done this—why have we not done so? That would be another way of making sure that children and young people do not see quite as much advertising. Evidence-based safer gambling messaging and signposting from the operators should also be pushed by the Government. That is possible and available, and it will be available to the Government to push the operators to do that in the very near future.
This morning, we heard that more young people in this country drink, smoke and vape than in any other western country. We could add gambling to that. This is a very serious issue. As I have said, the evidence shows that the more exposure to those sorts of addictions as a child, the more likely addiction is to follow. Those addictions will blight the lives of these children and young people for the rest of their life. We cannot stand by and say that children should not be supported to avoid those terrible addictions. The Government have a responsibility and, quite honestly, they did not meet it in the White Paper. I hope that they will do so now.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. I apologise for my slightly late appearance in the Chamber.
I was also a member of the Select Committee which considered these issues, now a few years back. I am also a member of Peers for Gambling Reform, led by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I pay tribute to his tireless work in seeking improvements to these problems. Like the noble Lord, I very much hope that, when the Minister responds, he will not be tempted to adopt the position that is to some extent taken in the White Paper, in which it was rather naively said that there is no hard evidence that gambling, advertising and marketing increase problem gambling. It is in the nature of things that conclusive evidence on that point is not available.
The following propositions are not in doubt. First, the gambling industry spends well over £1 billion a year on advertising and marketing in this country. It was more than £1.5 billion in 2017 and I would have a very large bet at very short odds that it is more now. Secondly, problem gamblers unquestionably provide a very substantial part of the profits made by the industry—see the committee’s report and plenty of other material. Thirdly, problem gamblers are more susceptible to gambling advertising than others—see the learned and impressive article published by the Public Health journal in February 2023. In all these circumstances, it is obviously correct to infer that the industry knows what it is spending its money on and why, that gambling advertising and marketing will increase gambling activity, and that a significant part of the increase will involve problem gambling. In short, one simply has to follow the money.
I have looked at some of the material helpfully circulated by the House of Lords Library. It contains a number of studies and papers that have been prepared in the last three or four years. I was particularly struck by one paper which I will mention in the time I have available. It was published by two academics at Bristol University, Rossi and Nairn, in 2021. Having considered evidence from 650 participants who were exposed to 24 gambling advertisements—and also, by way of a control, to other forms of non-gambling advertisements —it found that gambling advertising is
“significantly more appealing to children and young persons than to adults”.
It found that, in 2021, 45% of 11 to 17 year-olds saw gambling advertising on social media at least once a week, and about 25% saw it every day. That was three years ago. Use of, and to some extent addiction to, social media has not decreased since then.
There are various other findings which I do not have time to set out. One in particular struck me, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, spoke to this. There are many advertisements that relate to esports gambling. I doubt if many Members of this House engage in esports, let alone gamble on them. Esports are the professional, competitive playing of computer games online. To my surprise, I found that there is a huge amount of gambling on this. The authors of this report observed, correctly, that this is a development almost entirely under the radar of public discourse and policy-making. In so far as I can see, there is almost nothing in the White Paper about that.
The authors of the paper made various recommendations, in particular a ban on esports gambling advertising—because it is targeted at children and young persons—an expansion of the definition of a young person from 16 to 24, and enforced arrangements which would involve gambling advertisements being provided only when users confirmed that they recognised and wanted them. I do not have time to say more about the paper or the other available material but, as other speakers have emphasised, it all tends to suggest that there is a very real problem.
I have a question for the Minister. The Government are prepared to make unlawful the purchase of cigarettes for a significant segment of the population. Is there any good reason why they would not enforce an arrangement whereby gambling advertising would have to do what cigarette advertising used to do when it was permitted—namely, inform the potential user of the probable outcome, which is that he or she will lose money?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey. His final suggestion was a pertinent and encouraging one. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for securing this debate and for all the work that he has done over many years on this issue. I declare my position as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform.
I shall begin, for a change, with some positive good news—this picks up something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster—which is the ban on various forms of advertising that has come into place in Sheffield following a decision by the council in March. This is a great demonstration that campaigning works and can make a difference. I know some of the people who have been campaigning for that in Sheffield over a significant period. It is also a demonstration of the public desire to have healthier environments and healthy societies, which is what indeed this public health measure does. It is a ban, within the limits of the power of Sheffield City Council, applying to authority-owned hoardings. As well as gambling and betting products it covers short-term loans, alcoholic drinks, fossil-fuel products, some breast and infant milk formulas and petrol, diesel and hybrid plug-in vehicles. We can see the focus there on health. An important point to make is that, as the director of public health in Sheffield, Greg Fell, said, while this measure is not going to break our gambling harm epidemic—and it is important that the public health sector sees that the epidemic is there—it sets an important direction of travel.
I have a direct question for the Minister. Local councils and local communities have been expressing a desire to see these gambling adverts and other harmful adverts out of their communities. If the Government will not act centrally—although I would prefer it if they did—will they allow local communities to make the decision for themselves, not just on the sites that they control but on all the advertising sites within their communities?
It is important to note how much this advertising is focused in poorer, disadvantaged communities. In Sheffield, the group Adfree Cities found that 60% of the advertisements were in the poorest areas of the city while just 2% of the adverts were in the most affluent locations. More than four in five outdoor billboard adverts around the country are focused in the poorest areas of England and Wales. These impact negatively on people’s lives and on the environment in those communities.
Like other noble Lords, I commend the Library, as usual, on its excellent briefing. All the evidence is that, along with the deluge of gambling advertising that we are all being exposed to, we are seeing a great rise in problem gambling. Under the new methodology from the Gambling Commission, we are talking about a 2.5% problem gambler rate—that is more than 1 million people. This is an addiction problem and a public health crisis. The GamCare helpline had more than 50,000 calls and online chats in 2023, up 24% on the previous year.
Other noble Lords have referred to the situation of football. Again, there is a strong, fast-rising grass-roots campaign saying, “We want something to be done about this”. As far as I have been able to discover, AFC Wimbledon was the last club to join the campaign The Big Step, calling for an end to all gambling advertising in football. That campaign is part of Gambling with Lives, the charity set up by families bereaved by gambling-related suicide. I do not think anyone has said this figure yet, but I think it needs to be recorded: the Government’s own estimate is that there are 496 suicides related to problem gambling every year. And I have one figure showing how much people are suffering: in the first weekend of the Premier League last August, fans were subjected to 11,000 gambling adverts.
To put this all in a broader context, we have an epidemic of problem advertising. Figures out this morning from the WHO show that the UK has the worst rate of child alcohol abuse worldwide. We have a real problem where advertising is creating an unhealthy society. We need a much healthier society, which is something the Government themselves often acknowledge. Gambling is part of a much broader problem. There is no right to advertise. We have right to say as a society that we do not want to force unhealthy products on people and communities.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing this debate and for his work, alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others, on Peers for Gambling Reform, campaigning tirelessly over the past several years. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans cannot be in his place today to add his voice, I am sure I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we look forward to welcoming him back very soon to add weight to this conversation.
We have heard this afternoon that the link between problem gambling and serious harm is well documented. There are not only financial impacts of gambling addiction, which may on its own drive individuals with large gambling debts to theft, fraud or other forms of criminal activity, but also impacts on relationships, work, school and serious harm to both physical and mental health. Public Health England identified problem gamblers as at greater risk of dying from any cause and significantly increased risk of dying from suicide, as we have so eloquently just heard.
These consequences, as well as having an impact on those individuals, also lead to indirect harms to children in those households. I welcome the Government’s response to the committee’s second report on gambling regulation, particularly the commitment to use funds from the levy to commission independent research around gambling and gambling-related harms. However, I echo the committee’s call for this research to be undertaken urgently and specifically on the link between gambling advertising and gambling harm to children. I ask for a commitment and a timeline to address that recommendation.
Research by GambleAware released this month makes clear that children and young people are exposed to a high level of gambling advertising, particularly online. While we have heard that this link has not been proven to be causal, we have heard about the research that found that 34% of those who bet in the UK admit to being influenced by advertising, with over 15% claiming that ads cause them to increase their gambling. A similar percentage said that viewing ads resulted in them taking up gambling again after a break.
Gambling reform is not my area of expertise, but I have done a significant amount of work over the course of my ministry with at-risk children and young people. I am currently vice-chair of the Children’s Society. Ofcom’s most recent report finding that one-quarter of five to seven year olds own a smartphone, with nearly one-third using social media unsupervised, caused me great concern. We know that our children are increasingly online. We need to ensure we are keeping pace with the rapidly evolving online landscape to protect our children from harm.
New technologies are significantly increasing exposure to advertisement, sponsorships and marketing, and our current codes must be urgently updated to reflect this. Social media forms a huge part of the gambling industry’s advertising practices. I was really shocked to read recently that 92% of content marketing ads sent by major gambling brands were not obviously identifiable as advertising. That particularly impacts children.
I too will close with an example illustrating that current guidance to protect children and young people simply is not fit for purpose. As recently as a few weeks ago, a gambling firm was promoting a game on social media marketed with three cartoon frogs. Taking a dip with the “ribbiting rascals” might appeal to some adults, but it would almost certainly appeal more to children. Such advertising should not be allowed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I start with a small confession: I live in the village of Lambourn, which is the centre of the racing industry. If there ever was an industry linked to gambling, it is racing. That made me think about my reaction to gambling, given that I do not sit on horses or gamble much. It is the fact that it is a day out, when you have drinks in a nice environment, watching racing. Virtually everything we are talking about today does not apply to that scenario. We are talking about casually watching something on a screen, be it the one in our pockets—I have just remembered to make sure mine is switched off—a TV screen or another screen at home. That device in our pockets means that we can gamble at virtually any time. We need only be conscious to gamble on it. That is a totally different situation to the one I originally related to the gambling experience. It is a private activity. We know that the constant hits lead to addiction, so how do we control this situation and limit the inevitable damage, in a few cases, to those few cases? That is effectively what we are talking about here.
As many have mentioned, witty advertising lives with the young, even if they do not buy. How many witty smoking adverts did people come up with? They were quite creative and fun, with running jokes. I note the Silk Cut advert. Even non-smokers waited for the next joke. People bought in—it is very easy to. Some people take the biscuit, and some do not. The amount of money spent on advertising clearly means that the providers of this service see the link. As they are not going bankrupt at a rate of knots, one assumes they know what they are talking about.
What will the Government do to make sure that it is difficult for people to access gambling services? We have had suggestions, from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for example, about having more difficult identification processes. There was a very good idea about a warning saying, “The person who’s guaranteed to make money on your bet is the bookie”. That is a very creative idea, and I hope we will run with it.
What are the Government doing in a systematic manner to make sure that children have more problems getting access to this? If the parents actively help them, we may have more problems still, but what are the Government actively doing? What are we doing to make sure that the young in particular—going up to about 24 might be a good idea here—will not see this advertising by accident? That is probably the principal objective here. Will you see these witty, well-placed little adverts by accident? Are they something you take on board? If you watch anything that crosses the watershed on late-night TV, you find yourself subjected to gambling advertising—“subjected” is probably wrong because you can always switch off, but it is there and always around. What will we do to make sure that that does not happen?
Finally, when it comes to sports and the big stadiums, if the Premier League is starting to take the adverts off teams’ shirts, why are the Government not encouraging everyone to remove them over a period of time? There is always a run-in, but we are proving to sport generally, and the biggest sport of all, that government will intervene eventually. Encouragement to make sure that we are removing, or at least controlling, this advertising within the stadium and on players’ bodies seems a reasonable step. We can give them some warning, but we can reduce it. If it is going to be in the director’s box, maybe that is fine, but it does not have to be at the side of the pitch. Can we make sure that there is some vision for and thought on restricting this? At the moment, there does seem to be anything coherent. I look forward to seeing how that will change.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for bringing forward this topic for short debate. It is timely, and he is an indefatigable campaigner on this issue.
It is often said that we all like a flutter, and it is probably true, although you would struggle to get me to buy more than a raffle ticket. For most who choose to take part, it is an enjoyable and harmless activity but, at its extreme, gambling can be addictive; damaging to family life, relationships, and personal, mental and physical health; and life-destroying. I am sure that pretty much all of us have come across people in our lives with a gambling problem or who have been impacted by gambling problems. I know I have, and it was sad and tragic to see.
The DCMS Select Committee reported last year that
“around a third of a million people experience problem gambling, and it is likely that many more suffer gambling-related harm”.
The Library briefing for this debate, based on updated Gambling Commission data, estimates that it may be over a million. GamCare reports that the number of people seeking help for gambling-related harms is increasing. In the year to January 2024, requests for help rose by 24%. The NHS also reports increased demand for its gambling clinics. This is before we consider those who are struggling but do not feel able to ask for help.
I want to focus briefly on the need for better research. The DCMS Select Committee, in its inquiry into the gambling White Paper, stated:
“There is an urgent need to better understand the effects of gambling advertising on the risk of harm”.
It found that:
“While the existing evidence base does not show a causative link between gambling advertising and harm, it seems clear that advertising encourages participation in gambling and that this effect is more pronounced for children and those vulnerable to gambling harm”.
The activity of the gambling industry clearly suggests that it believes that advertising is a driver of interest in and support for gambling. In 2018, Regulus Partners reported that investment in marketing increased between 2014 and 2017 from £l billion to £1.5 billion, roughly 10% of the industry’s £13.8 billion revenue, with much of it now targeted at gamblers online. The Select Committee recommended that:
“The Government must commission independent longitudinal research on the link between gambling advertising and the risk of gambling harm, including specifically for … children”.
This needs to be a focus of the funding made available by the statutory levy.
I have two questions for the Minister. In their response to the Select Committee, published last week, the Government stated that levy funding will be directed towards independent research on gambling and gambling-related harms, which “could” include further advertising-related research. Can the Minister confirm to the House today that levy funding will be directed at research into the link between advertising and gambling harms, particularly in relation to children? Secondly—I am sure the Minister must be expecting this question—when can we expect the Government to publish their consultation on the statutory levy? The response to the Select Committee gives little away when it states that we should expect it “in the coming weeks”.
Sport, which many noble Lords have spoken about, is another key issue here. It is a huge part of our national and family life, and children are exposed to it and enjoy it alongside older family members. Alongside welcome and effective measures, including the whistle-to-whistle ban and plans for gambling sponsorship to be removed from the front of players’ kits, the Minister will be aware of the concerns raised over the amount of gambling advertising that young viewers are still exposed to during sporting events, and which they cannot opt out of.
It is therefore welcome that the central cross-sport gambling sponsorship code of conduct has been finalised, and that one of the four core principles is the protection of children and other vulnerable people. Can the Minister confirm that the code has been published, so it can be accessed by parliamentarians and sports fans—of course, some of us are both? Can the Minister give an update on when we might expect individual sports to publish their bespoke versions of the code? Can he tell us whether the Government are alive to the VIP managed clients who, thanks to direct online marketing techniques, now generate some 83% of gambling companies’ profits? By the way, one of the code’s core principles is that gambling promotion will be socially responsible. Can the Minister tell us more about what that looks like?
Finally, we welcome the ongoing work on delivering the White Paper; this is an area in which there is a sizable amount of activity and considerable consensus. What Members of this House are seeking to do is ensure that that activity is focused and delivered at pace and that no crucial issues are allowed to fall through the gaps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for initiating today’s debate and for the way he opened it. I had the pleasure of working with him, and a number of noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate, on the Select Committee that he mentioned, before I became a Minister at DCMS. So I thank him for his tenacity in this area.
The Government recognise the concerns that he and many other noble Lords have raised about the impact of gambling advertising, particularly its impact on children. The debate about advertising reflects the balance we are aiming to strike with our vision for the gambling sector more broadly: regulating an innovative and responsible gambling industry on the one hand, and fulfilling the duty of government to protect children and the wider public from gambling-related harm on the other.
That is why, as part of our review of the Gambling Act 2005, we took an exhaustive look at the best available evidence. We are certainly not dismissive of evidence: on the contrary, we have sought to take an evidence-based approach. The White Paper that we published in April last year includes a robust, balanced package of reforms to prevent and minimise the risks of gambling-related harm.
Since the implementation of the Gambling Act under the last Labour Government nearly 20 years ago, gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship have become more visible and widespread, and we have seen a visible integration of gambling advertising within sport. While this continual growth has not resulted in an increase in gambling participation rates, or in population problem-gambling rates, which have remained broadly stable for roughly two decades, it is important that there is a range of robust protections on advertising in place to ensure that it does not exacerbate harm.
The rules on gambling advertising, which operators must follow, are set by the Committee of Advertising Practice. A wide range of provisions in the codes are specifically designed to protect children and vulnerable adults. Compliance with these codes is a condition of Gambling Commission licences, and the commission can—and does—take action on adverts that are in breach of the codes.
Furthermore, the industry code for socially responsible advertising includes a television watershed on all gambling products apart from bingo and lotteries. Children’s exposure to gambling advertising on broadcast television is declining. The industry’s “whistle-to-whistle” ban has cut the number of pre-9pm betting adverts to around a quarter of their previous level, and further cut the average number of sports betting adverts seen by children to 0.3 per week.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
I just want to clarify something: I should have said “pre-watershed”. I was in too much of a hurry to keep within five minutes; I am sorry.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I hope what I have said is none the less helpful in relation to the points she raised in her speech, which I welcome.
We recognise that there is good evidence to show that gambling advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already experiencing problems with their gambling, and that some aggressive marketing practices are particularly associated with harm. The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, mentioned a study which reflects that.
Evidence from the Gambling Commission shows that 35% of problem gamblers received incentives of offers to gamble daily, compared with 4% of non-problem gamblers. Furthermore, while 10% of gamblers with a “non-problem” or “low-risk” score—according to the problem gambling severity index—were influenced to gamble more by direct marketing, this rose to 41% among those with a “moderate risk” or “problem gambler” score.
We also recognise that content often used in gambling advertising can inappropriately appeal to children and young people—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised such an instance. That is why we have introduced a suite of measures to further prevent potentially harmful impacts of advertising, specifically for children. Since October 2022, advertising rules have been strengthened to prohibit content that downplays the risk or overstates the skill involved in betting. The rules also ban content that is likely to be of strong appeal to children. In that regard, I will raise with officials the frog-based example that the right reverend Prelate gave. As a result of this ban, top-flight footballers or celebrities popular with children are banned from being in gambling adverts. In line with existing gambling advertising rules, the Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms will commence by the end of the 2025-26 season, breaking the direct association between gambling brands and popular players.
The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, suggested that there should be warnings to potential players on gambling adverts. Robust Advertising Standards Authority rules prevent content and adverts that, for instance, promote gambling as a route to financial success, and adverts on television must direct people to available support services. We are also working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop independent information campaigns about the risks of gambling—taking that out of the hands of the industry.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I find it difficult that he stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about all these rules, when I gave a specific example of a Paddy Power advertisement—although it is not called an advertisement—that simply had a large photograph of the Liverpool manager, Jürgen Klopp. Does he believe that was a correct thing for Paddy Power to do, or should it have been banned?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, as with the case that the right reverend Prelate raised, I will take that up with officials. I was spelling out some of the actions—some of which are still to come in. As I said, the Premier League rules will come in by the end of the forthcoming season. I am sure the noble Lord will reflect that some of the work has been done and some is coming shortly, but I will raise the case he mentions with the team at the department.
As we set out in our White Paper, we are also working closely with the Gambling Commission to take targeted action on advertising to ban harmful practices and ensure that it remains socially responsible, wherever it appears. The commission has recently consulted on new rules to give consumers more control over the direct gambling marketing that they wish to receive, and on strengthened protections to ensure that free bets and bonuses are constructed in a way that does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling. The commission will set out its responses to these consultations soon. Together, these measures will empower customers and prohibit harmful marketing practices, to prevent the risk of gambling harms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to the powers available to local authorities. As she reflected, these vary from local authority to local authority, but, as we heard in the debate, the metro mayors in London and Manchester are using the powers that are available to them.
There is no single intervention that provides the answer to effectively preventing gambling-related harm. That is why we have taken a holistic approach that includes action on products and protections for players. We recently announced the introduction of stake limits for online slot games, where we have seen evidence of elevated levels of harmful gambling, and are pursuing broader protections, such as financial risk checks that will require online operators to identify and take action in relation to customers who are financially vulnerable. That will prevent runaway losses, which we are still seeing happen too often. The Government are clear that effective and innovative collaboration to get the right mixture of interventions for the population as a whole—as well as those with specific needs or vulnerabilities—is required to tackle gambling harm.
A key part of that approach is the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory levy, which I know has been a long-standing priority for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others raised. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, dwelt on the importance of evidence. Perhaps I should end my remarks by acknowledging that further work is needed to build the evidence base to ensure that policy and regulation are able to deal with emerging issues.
In response to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I make clear that developing quality evidence is a priority for our statutory levy. Through the levy, increased and ring-fenced funding will be directed towards high-quality, independent research into gambling and gambling-related harms, including in relation to advertising. We will continue to monitor the evidence base and, if new evidence suggests that we need to go further, we will look at this again. The Government will also respond to their bespoke consultation on the levy and will set out their final decisions very soon.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for tabling today’s debate and all those who have spoken in it. I am certain that we will return to this topic again before long.
Defence Spending
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my registered interests, specifically my associations with the Royal Navy.
As my friend, shadow Defence Secretary John Healey, said in the other place yesterday, there is “much to welcome” in this Statement, and any and all commitments of additional resource for our national security will receive cross-party support. It is clear that we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Our dedicated and professional service personnel are operating in multiple theatres, securing UK interests and supporting our partners. Every day we ask more of them and their families, asking them to make sacrifices so that the rest of us remain safe and secure at home.
These Benches welcome the new commitments to build up stockpiles, boost defence exports, give priority to domestic defence production and set up a new strategic headquarters in the MoD—all commitments for which the Labour Party has been calling for months. It is welcome to see the Government listening to the arguments made by the Opposition. I also take a moment to applaud the additional support for Ukraine, announced both here and in the US. Its fight is our fight.
A fortnight ago, when confirming our cast-iron commitment to the deterrent, Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Opposition, made our position clear. A future Labour Government will have a fully funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, so our aspiration is the same as the Government’s. As always, there should be no political point scoring on matters of national security and defence. What there should and must be is the Opposition holding the Government to account for their policies and competence.
On that note, I hope the Minister can assist your Lordships’ House in answering questions that the Secretary of State struggled to answer in the other place yesterday. Where is the fully costed plan to get us to 2.5% by 2030? Only a matter of weeks ago, His Majesty’s Government presented and passed a Budget. The associated Red Book made it clear that the Government were planning to cut real-terms spending on defence by over £2.5 billion in this financial year, so where is the additional money coming from, and why did it not feature in last month’s Budget?
The Secretary of State keeps referring to page 20 of the Defending Britain policy paper, which was launched yesterday. The annexe on page 20 does not outline where the money is coming from. However, it does state the MoD budget for each year, up to and including 2030-31. Given the additional commitments the Government have rightly made to our allies in Ukraine, which we support, the annexe in the policy paper actually shows a cut in defence spending planned for 2024-25. This was not in the press release.
In various media interviews in the last 48 hours, government representatives have stated that some of this new funding will come from a cut in Civil Service numbers by some 70,000 posts. The last time this Government pledged to increase defence spending by cutting the number of civil servants was in 2015. The number of people in post actually increased by 50%, so please forgive my cynicism, but we have heard this before.
While on the point of civil servants, can the Minister confirm that the MoD will not face cuts in its workforce? As last checked, the staff employed by the MoD do the roles that we would prefer to be done by civilians rather than those in uniform, from R&D to procurement and business services. Any cuts in these areas will undermine our effectiveness and, in places, our national security.
No one in this House disagrees that the strategic environment in which we operate is becoming more challenging every day. While hindsight is a wonderful thing, I genuinely fail to understand why it is only this week that the Government have decided to respond to the assertion of Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, that the defence budget has been hollowed out.
Since 2010, £15 billion has been wasted on failed procurement. Our Army is now at the smallest size since Napoleon, one in five ships has been removed from the Royal Navy fleet, more than 200 planes have been taken out of service since 2019, and morale in our forces has fallen by 20% since the Labour Party left office. There is clearly work to be done to ensure that, with increasing threats and growing tensions, we are fighting fit.
This month marks 75 years since a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, signed the original NATO treaty. My party helped to found NATO and our ongoing commitment is unshakeable. The Labour Party has the same aspiration as the Government: defence spending at 2.5%—the same level of defence expenditure last achieved under a Labour Government. We will always do what is needed to defend Britain and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats our nation faces—and we will do it with a fully costed plan.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, and on behalf of these Benches, I fully support His Majesty’s Armed Forces. How proud we are of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and what they have done in recent months and years. I endorse the spending commitments that His Majesty’s Government are making, but I also express some concerns about where the funding will come from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, obviously has a better version of the policy document than I received, because the one I have has no page numbers at all—so if there is a page 20, I have no idea where it is. But we do have the spending detail annexe.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness; I am told that this is indeed page 20.
The percentage of GDP that is being looked at starts at 2.32% for 2024-25 and goes up, according to this, to 2.5%, in line with His Majesty’s Government’s commitment outlined yesterday, 24 April. But I note the words:
“Memo—UK GDP based on OBR’s latest forecasts”.
There is sometimes a little scepticism about OBR forecasts. While far be it from me to raise the sort of concerns and scepticism that a former Prime Minister might have raised about the OBR, can the Minister reassure the House that the forecasts for two, three, four and up to six years out are actually likely to be correct? It matters enormously to these commitments that the OBR predictions should be right, because the commitments being made now are vital.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked why the announcement was this week. As something of a cynic, I wonder whether it was not simply part of the Prime Minister working his way up to a general election, because every day this week we seemed to have a new announcement, whether it was flights going to Rwanda or the commitments to defence. While on Rwanda we might disagree, on defending Britain we do not disagree at all that it is vital. In that sense, the Statement is welcome.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Clearly, the commitment is there to defence expenditure—it follows on from the commitment to improving defence procurement—but this is a relatively short timeframe of six years. In the context of global crises, which we see from authoritarian regimes—as His Majesty’s Government have suggested, Iran, Russia, North Korea and China all seem to work in consort in some arenas—do His Majesty’s Government think that this commitment, while in itself welcome, will deliver change sufficiently swiftly? How far are His Majesty’s Government looking not just to closer co-operation with our NATO allies as a collective—obviously, we are also committed to NATO—but to strengthening bilateral relations, for example with France, in addition to the commitments made in Germany two days ago?
Further, to what extent do His Majesty’s Government think that other regional patterns of co-operation, such as AUKUS, will help them to take the leading role in NATO, which has been stated is an ambition?
In the policy document, the Secretary of State reminds us that in his Lancaster House speech he noted that, clearly,
“the era of the peace dividend is over”.
That is obviously right. In terms of procurement and ensuring that we have the right industrial defence base, 2030 is actually very close. Does the Minister feel that this Statement goes far enough? Will he commit to coming regularly to the House to tell us how it can be delivered and, in particular, about the numbers of civil servants who might be still in post in the MoD? Are their numbers vulnerable alongside those of other civil servants to pay for this deal?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, this is indeed a very historic document, and I am extremely grateful for the support that we have received from all sides of the House, as well as outside it. Noble Lords will be well aware of my views on defence spending—they should be by now, anyway—so I am delighted to follow the commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place that we will now reach the 2.5% of GDP that we have long talked about by 2030.
The headline figure throughout, where I appreciate noble Lords want to see more detail, and quite rightly so, is the £75 billion spent between now and then. Over the next six years, this additional funding to the budget will take us to the 2.5% of GDP, which at that point will work out at £87 billion in defence spending by 2030.
If your Lordships will allow me to get into the weeds for a moment, on page 20 of the pledge document—I promise the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that there is a page 20 in this document—they will see how we intend to reach this trajectory. It is a flat line from now—it does not tip up at the end. They will also see how the NATO qualifying defence spend matches up against the core defence budget, as footnote 2 explains. To be clear, this is the same metric used across the NATO alliance. The figures used are also based on the OBR March 2024 GDP forecasts, as is standard practice, and cash totals will be confirmed at the relevant spending reviews as time progresses.
In short, this increase to 2.5% will be funded in full through savings, reallocation of resources, more efficient outputs, ruthlessly pursuing waste and delay—of which we know there has been a lot—and projected economic growth, and driving productivity throughout the MoD without any increase in borrowing or debt.
We will better invest in our relationship with industry—a critical point—in including £10 billion over the next 10 years on a new munitions strategy. In addition, through the integrated procurement model we will radically reform and modernise our Armed Forces following the Haythornthwaite review, and we will capitalise on our existing research and innovation expertise through the new defence innovation agency—the DIA.
What is more, this is in addition to the further substantial package of support also announced this week, our largest yet to our allies in Ukraine—many thanks to noble Lords for the continuing support on that. There will be some £500 million of support, as well as these 60 boats, including raiding craft, 1,600 strike and air defence missiles and more Storm Shadows, a mixture of 400 protected, armoured and all-terrain vehicles, and nearly 4 million additional rounds of small-arms ammunition.
We can all agree that this is significant news and, most importantly, the 2.5% must be spent wisely. As the Prime Minister stated in Poland earlier this week, we did not choose this moment, but it falls to us to meet it. Finally, before answering the questions, I will say that in the heightened area of instability that we now face, our first duty in the Ministry of Defence is to the national security and defence of our nation at any cost.
I will address some of the specific issues. On the question of Ukraine, we have now raised the contribution this year to £3 billion and that level will continue. As to why this was not covered in the Budget, I say that there was an enormous amount of negotiation going on at the time, and this is in the relatively recent past. We were putting the plan together, but it just was not ready. If you look at the situation now, the economic plan is starting to work properly; inflation is down from over 11% to 3.2%. We have a security environment that is continuing to deteriorate, and that has given us an opportunity to set the 2.5% target.
The Chancellor made a statement that he wants to return the numbers in the Civil Service, across government, to where they were before the pandemic struck, and the Ministry of Defence will be a beneficiary of that. There is no suggestion of a cliff edge—the cuts will take place in a gradual process over three years. The turn and vacancy level is quite perceivable within that period, and although there is not a recruitment ban there is a 2-for-1 in place at the MoD.
On the size of the forces, capability is as important as much as anything else. We should not hark back to the size of the Army 200 years ago; things were quite different then, although they were not that different 50 years ago. We have learned an enormous amount with the issue in Ukraine, and that is why the DIA is being set up. That hopes to achieve a grouping together of all existing R&D bodies into a single responsible and empowered organisation, particularly with the enormous and remarkable strength this country has in DSTL, and to scale up R&D, drive cutting-edge defence technology in high-tech stuff such as DragonFire and hypersonic missiles, and low-cost, high-impact stuff such as single-direction attack drones. I will mention DragonFire as an example—the Secretary of State did as well. My honourable friend the Minister for Procurement has used the new integrated procurement model to work on DragonFire, and has brought the gestation period forward five years. When we were talking about the new procurement model, there was an issue about how effective that would be. and on this exercise it proved very effective.
On NATO, which has never been more important than it is now, the commitment to move to 2.5% has been widely welcomed and accepted. It was not long ago when the idea of most NATO countries moving to 2% was quite a difficult ask. As Jens Stoltenberg said, the UK is “leading by example” in moving to 2.5%. There is a hope and an expectation that that example will help to move other NATO countries in that direction, both bilaterally and as a defence alliance. That is certainly the intention and I understand that it has been very well received. In fact, I have just come from a meeting with some colleagues from the United States. They were extremely appreciative and absolutely understood where we were coming from, so that was very good indeed.
AUKUS and GCAP are absolutely fundamental to our international relationships. It depends how long I am here, but I certainly will commit to the House that I will come to keep everybody absolutely up to date, particularly about the size of the Civil Service within the MoD and all other matters relating to what is a very considerable ask on the British public.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my specific interest as a member of the executive committee of the Army Board. I welcome this announcement. It is a significant amount of money and I commend the Government. However, my noble friend will forgive me if I judge success not by financial input but by what capabilities this money will deliver and, crucially, when. Our Armed Forces have been hollowed out, principally by gifting to Ukraine, so can he reassure me that some of this money is not just for new capabilities but for replacing existing capabilities that have been gifted? Finally, if there is one enemy in all this it is the Treasury. In my humble experience, it is all very well having a commitment of money to defence, but unless we get prompt Treasury approvals on time all this capability will be delayed. Can my noble friend simply reassure me that appropriate conversations have been had with the Treasury?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. On the Treasury, the Chancellor has absolutely been involved throughout this entire conversation and is fully supportive, as is the Prime Minister, of exactly what we are trying to achieve. On gifting and the replenishment of munitions and stocks, everything that we have gifted, including in the announcement this week, is within its sell-by date but is no longer really necessary. Replacements are coming in of new, modern equipment. The Army is perfectly happy to gift this to the Ukrainian effort.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I used to work for Peter Carrington and Denis Healey, two great Defence Secretaries. I have been trying to work out how they would have reacted to this Statement. They would certainly have welcomed the increase in defence spending. It is clearly necessary and they would have said so. I think they both would have said that it is not enough but that it is certainly to be welcomed.
Denis Healey certainly would have found it impossible to accept the construction of the £75 billion. Could the Minister confirm that £75 billion is reached only by making the rather ludicrous assumption that the baseline is flat in cash terms, with reductions in real terms in every year of the six-year period? That is the baseline on which one can build annual increments summing to £75 billion. Perhaps he could confirm that is the case. Denis Healey would never have tried such odd accounting.
Peter Carrington would have argued that it is unwise not to prepare the country for a certain amount of pain. The Government are trying to present necessary defence increases as painless. It might be better to admit that there will be a cost, either in taxation or in less money for domestic programmes. The defence of the realm is the first task of government.
It is also absurd, in the week in which President Biden and Speaker Johnson have come forward with a rather substantial programme of assistance to Ukraine, for our Defence Secretary to stand up and say that the NATO partners looked to each other for leadership and the UK Government stepped forward to provide the alliance with the decisive leadership demanded in this knife-edge moment and that, in the build-up to the NATO summit in Washington, he—Mr Shapps—would be doing all he could to get alliance members to follow our lead. This is absurd talk. We should speak softly and carry a big stick. The stick is slightly bigger—not big enough in my view—after this week’s announcement, but we must learn to avoid the bluster and bravado and speak more sensibly.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the financial detail is quite complicated and I think it is better if we write and explain how the figures are built up.
It is clearly an ask for the British public. The cake is finite, as I have said before, and defence needs more. It is not an inconsiderable amount of money that we are increasing the defence budget by, and there is a question of how much money you can spend over time. It is rather like building a house, in that you cannot spend it all at once; you have to build up. If you look at where the investment focus is within the next few years, you find that, first, it is on firing up the UK industrial base, including £10 billion for a new munitions strategy. That is extremely important. Secondly, it is on ensuring that our Armed Forces benefit from the very latest technology, through the DIA. Thirdly, it is on guaranteeing long-term support for Ukraine; if we do not do that, it is just going to become more and more expensive. As the Secretary-General said the other day, this is the cheapest time to defeat the Russians. Fourthly, it is on ensuring that expenditure is effective through radical procurement reform, which I have already covered.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, all of us will welcome any increase to defence expenditure at a time of maximum turmoil and trouble in the world. There is much in this Statement which is to be welcomed, not just the extra money but the aspects on resilience and the rest.
However, I turn the Minister’s attention back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. These increases in defence expenditure matter only in terms of the capability that they will produce, and that depends very much on whether or not these figures are accurate and whether the contention that they are going to be fully funded is correct. Many of the economists and experts outside, having looked at the figures overnight, are questioning very deeply their veracity—not only the fact that the £75 billion championed here is based on an assumption about flat cash values of expenditure but the fact that there is a gap between the £4.5 billion a year the Government say they will spend and the £7 billion. How is it going to be produced? Mr Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that what is proposed will not be fully funded. He said:
“It’s in the ballpark of full-throttle austerity”.
The Resolution Foundation says that the contention that it is fully funded is a “joke”. Since we are not laughing, and since these matters are of national and international importance, can the Minister now tell us precisely what is the veracity of the figures that have been produced?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I really appreciate the detail of that question. Of course, the importance of getting the figures right and where the money is coming from is critical to the success of the entire endeavour. The detail is such that I would rather write than try to answer the question now, but there is no doubt that the commitment to this level of expenditure has been made and will be delivered.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, the commitments to Ukraine—both the short-term increased commitment and, perhaps even more importantly, the long-term commitment the Minister referred to—are immensely important today, because Russia must be defeated for the sake of all democracies globally. Right now, Ukrainians right across the country are experiencing ballistic missile attacks on energy and heating infrastructure, homes, hospitals and schools, which they do not have the systems to defend, and the increasing use of Russian air assets on the front line. This country is short of ballistic missiles and defence systems, so what will be done to improve that in the long run? More immediately, what can the UK do to join those pressing for the supply of Patriot and other systems capable of defeating these missiles? A number of European countries that are not able to supply them themselves have offered to fund the purchase of such systems. Is the UK supporting that work?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Most of the conversations about the issues Ukraine is facing start with air defence missiles. It is not just Ukraine but other states that could be threatened by the Russian Federation. There is an enormous effort in the production of these missiles to try to provide what is necessary, not just in the short term, which is moving them around, but in the long term. It was extremely good news to see the United States pass through their commitment to Ukraine. Some of the missiles have already been delivered.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in 2021, the Government published the integrated review entitled Global Britain in a competitive age, which was refreshed in 2023. It was described as setting out the UK’s overarching national security and international strategy, which covers defence, security, resilience, diplomacy, development and trade, as well as elements of economic and science and technology policy. In making this spending announcement on defence, and operating within that systemic approach to security, did the Government give full consideration to the possible need to increase spending on diplomacy and issues such as the climate emergency? Has this all been considered systemically in the round when looking at the allocation of resources?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that exactly those conversations have taken place, and that is one of the reasons why it has perhaps taken slightly longer to get to this position than I and many others would have liked.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, there is an intriguing sentence in the Statement: that we are now producing
“a new plan that for the first time brings together the civil and military planning for how we would respond to the most severe risks that our country faces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/24; col. 939.]
I would have thought that the 1998 defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and the post-2010 strategic defence and security review tried to do that as well, but does that plan include co-operation with European partners? There are some impressive figures for defence industrial investment in the Statement, but it reads a little as if we are on our own in Europe in doing this. In fact, Germany is sharply increasing its defence spending and is providing more support to Ukraine than we are, and France is ramping up its defence industrial spending. In terms of resilience, is this not the moment to work more closely with our European partners and co-ordinate on the effect that will have on the scale and speed of developing the weapons and supplying them to Ukraine?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The answer is yes. The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is critically important that we work with our international allies, whether European or elsewhere, to ensure that what is developed is complementary, but that we are producing what is required rather than unnecessary stockpiles of weapons and munitions. That was also one of the points that our American colleagues brought out earlier this afternoon; they were very pleased indeed with the progress we have made so far.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, in introducing the Statement, the Defence Secretary said:
“we will remove 72,000 civil servants from the system, not because we do not think they are good people—fortunately, with low unemployment we know they will be gainfully employed elsewhere”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/24; col. 944.]
Can the Minister tell me whether there were any negotiations with the trade unions? Are we to believe that there are 72,000 civil servants doing nothing? If that is not the case, can the Minister tell us what services will be reduced, curtailed or ended altogether? I would like an assurance that there will be negotiations with the trade unions in the implementation of this policy. I do not oppose the policy, but I wonder about that bit of it.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the 72,000 figure comes from the Chancellor’s desire to move the size of the Civil Service back to the situation in 2019, before the Covid virus struck. The Civil Service was required to grow quite considerably to cope with that situation, which has now passed. It seems logical that we start to move, through a period of natural attrition—there is no suggestion of mass requirements—back to a position where the Civil Service is fit for service, lean and nimble.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, this is too little, too late, but it is still good news because we are actually spending some money on it. The support going to Ukraine is particularly good news. We must defeat and stop Putin in Ukraine, or else we will have to stop him in Europe, so it must be good news that we have done that.
I must say I have some concern about where this money will come from, but on the assumption we are getting it, I will go down into the weeds in one small area. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is absolutely crucial to the Royal Navy. For example, one of its ships is doing the Gaza support; the littoral response group ships are both RFA ships; and “Proteus”, a new vessel looking at undersea cables, is an RFA ship. A lot of these ships are now stuck in harbour, and there is a real issue because the RFA has suffered real reductions in pay and conditions of service. I ask the Minister to go back to the MoD and ask, as one of the first little kick-starters of money, that this be looked at. Without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary being manned, the Royal Navy actually grinds to a halt. There are also other little things in the manpower arena across the Army and Air Force that will make a huge difference.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I could not agree more. As to the question of “too little, too late”, it is extremely welcome that we are where we are now. It is absolutely critical that NATO faces up to the Russian Federation and defeats Putin because, as the noble Lord rightly said, if we do not do it now, it will be Europe next, and that will cost an enormous amount more in both human and financial terms.
On the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, I entirely agree. Conversations are taking place. I was in the Black Sea in one of the littoral states last week, where they were talking about the two ships in Portsmouth that are now ready to make their way over and what a good move that is.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement on which my noble friend is responding today. Many important questions have been raised today. Will my noble friend give us an update on, and perhaps not forget, the accommodation that our Armed Forces personnel live in, and make sure that their conditions are not forgotten and that the upgrades and improvements that are required are part of this plan?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is a very good point. Accommodation is critical in recruitment and retention. Within the plan, there is £4 billion expenditure over the next 10 years to upgrade and build new service accommodation. At the moment, 97% of what we have meets the Government’s decent homes standard, but we continue to work with suppliers to make sustained improvements on the existing portfolio of properties. It is a point extremely well made that we must make certain that not just accommodation but all service pay and conditions are at the highest level.
Affordable Housing: Supply
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Chandos
That this House takes note of the supply of genuinely affordable housing, its impact on the economy, and the steps needed to increase supply, particularly for key workers and those on lower incomes.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, 105 years ago, Lloyd George made a commitment to building houses for those returning from the horrors of the First World War—“homes fit for heroes”—central to the general election campaign immediately following the armistice. The heroes we have applauded more recently, while never forgetting the bravery and dedication of our Armed Forces, have been the NHS workers who through the Covid pandemic displayed a courage and commitment to public service no less than those in the military. Covid’s evolution from pandemic to endemic has not relieved the pressure on the NHS and its workers, who are still widely regarded as heroes in their care for patients. However, for many of them, and other individuals and families on low incomes, truly affordable housing is as scarce as it was for those returning from the front in 1918.
I am privileged to have the opportunity to introduce this debate today on affordable housing, even if it is depressing to confront the sheer scale of the problem. I am conscious of the profound knowledge and experience that other speakers today have in this field, and I am very grateful that they will bring their expertise to bear on this problem. I am truly delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has chosen today’s debate in which to make her maiden speech, which I look forward to hearing.
There is rarely a day when the problems of the housing market are not central to public debate and news coverage. This week, the Nationwide Foundation and the Church of England led a powerful group of organisations and individuals in the publication of Homes for All: A Vision for England’s Housing System with wide-ranging analysis and suggested priorities, to which a cross-party group of your Lordships contributed.
Much of that debate was around the overall housing market, rather than the affordable and social sectors on which we are focused today. Of course, this overall market is not just relevant to the affordable and social sectors; it is the context for and driver of the underlying problem. If housing costs generally were not so high in the UK, then market rents and purchase prices would be affordable further down the scale of household incomes.
One vivid illustration of the underlying problem has been given by Paul Cheshire, professor emeritus of economic geography at the LSE. In 1955, a dozen eggs cost a little under six shillings—how nostalgic it is to express it in the currency of my childhood—or 28 pence in this newfangled decimal currency. If the price of eggs had increased in the subsequent 50 years or so at the same level as the price of housing land, the price of a dozen eggs today would have risen to £91.
The sclerotic and political planning system lies at the heart of the shortage of housing land and its consequent eye-watering price. I welcome the Labour Party’s clearly and rigorously defined intention to reform the planning system. Even if, later this year, the electorate choose to give the Labour Party a mandate to push through its planning reforms, the need for more affordable and social homes will remain. Even if, in time, a Labour Government can address low pay and the position of those who—through no fault of their own—are on benefits, there will still be a need for more affordable housing.
I promised myself not to overload my remarks with figures, but there are a few which are inescapable in illustrating the scale of the problem. There are 1.2 million individuals or families on local authority waiting lists for social housing. More than 100,000 are in temporary accommodation. Over the 10 years to 2021, the completion of affordable and social homes averaged 50,000 a year. Critically, during this period, homes built for social rent—defined as 65% or less of market rent—fell from around half of that figure to one-fifth. Affordable rent—80% of market rent, which represents a still intolerable burden on the lowest-income households—has become the largest part of this broad sector. The remaining category of shared or low-cost ownership is likely to be way out of reach for those lowest-income households.
In 2019, the Social Housing Commission calculated that more than 3 million social homes needed to be built within 20 years to meet needs—that is more than 150,000 a year. The Bramley paper for the National Housing Federation and Crisis made its own analysis. It reached a very similar figure of 145,000 per year. Is this mission impossible? The challenge, should we accept it, is to triple the level of affordable and social housing built annually, compared to that achieved in the past decade, and to ensure that, of the almost universally accepted total housebuilding target of 300,000 per year, 50% should comprise affordable and social homes, compared to the 25% in recent years.
Should we accept this challenge? Yes, of course we should. Let us unlock our inner Ethan Hunts and Ilsa Fausts and accept this challenge. If we do not, we condemn hundreds of thousands of individuals and families to a life of financial hardship, anxiety and distress. Most importantly, the provision of affordable housing contributes to the well-being, happiness and mental health of individuals and families who are otherwise living insecurely in overcrowded and substandard conditions, while paying a disproportionate share of their income for the privilege.
In addition, there is clear evidence of a wider economic benefit from improved productivity, better workforce participation, greater rates of innovation and, critically, improved provision of public services, in which so many lower earners work—which takes us back to where we came in. These economic benefits—GDP and tax revenue enhancement, and cost savings on temporary accommodation from reduced reliance on short-term agency workers, for instance—in the medium to long term at least mitigate the cost of increased investment in affordable and social housing. In the shorter term, though, there is inevitably an up-front financial cost, as well as the challenge of executing such an expanded building programme cost-effectively and as fast as possible.
I was thinking, “There is no silver bullet”. That reminded me of a consulting firm, a micro-McKinsey that I worked with in the past, rather wonderfully named by its founder the Silver Bullet Machine Manufacturing Company, with the emphasis on the word “machine”. The point that the founder was making in a drily humorous way was that looking for a random large single silver bullet to solve a problem is vanishingly unlikely to be successful, whereas establishing a system or process that identifies and utilises a number of smaller silver bullets is far more likely to be productive.
Central government, local government, housing associations and the private sector each need to play their part and, if necessary, need to be empowered to do so. It should be a true mixed economy. Each party may act alone in some cases or in partnership in others. Each has challenges. Local authorities rightfully aspire to the central role that they have had historically, but the restrictions on their ability to reinvest the proceeds from right to buy over the years have significantly reduced their financial firepower. The increase from 40% to 50% retention recently announced by the Government is welcome, but why not 100%?
The reduction in building activity over the past 45 years, exacerbated by the vicious cuts in local government funding by Conservative or Conservative-led Governments since 2010, has left many local authority housing departments atrophied. It will take time for them to be rebuilt, even under a more enlightened central government regime, particularly as planning departments also need strengthening in many cases.
Housing associations are limited in their capacity to build new homes by their inability to raise equity funding, limits on their gearing levels and the capital investment required to maintain their existing stock. They can still contribute directly and significantly to the 150,000 new affordable homes a year that are needed, but also, vitally, as partners, particularly to private funders and providers and as managers of homes owned and/or developed by others.
The private sector encompasses landowners, commercial developers, the construction industry and specialist, mostly private affordable housing funds and investors. I will touch on landowners in a moment but will otherwise speak briefly about the specialist funds. If there is not to be a Trussian renouncement of all discipline in public borrowing, which your Lordships will know would not happen under my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor, private equity capital is needed to play its part in achieving the challenging targets for new homes—not just the capital but the development skills as well.
PFI and private equity’s role in the utility industries, notably the water industry, understandably cause concern at the prospect of private capital playing a larger part in the affordable housing sector. We should learn from this history. In the water industry, there has been a toxic combination of a disgracefully weak regulator and unfettered, aggressive maximisation of financial returns by some private equity houses. On the one hand, the Government and Parliament must ensure that the regulator for social housing is strong and robust. On the other, the specialist funds need to behave in a responsible way. I believe this is not a forlorn hope in the light of these funds’ culture and central position in the ESG and sustainable investing movement. We should also ensure that net zero is embedded in all they do.
Finally, central government must drive and co-ordinate all of this, and provide the funding for the grants to local authorities, housing authorities and private funders alike, which are needed to deliver the homes at affordable and social rents. It has to be recognised that much of these subsidies will be for the southern half of England, given that this is where the gap between market and affordable rents is greatest. This needs to be reconciled with levelling-up ambitions.
Should landowners provide more of that subsidy through the imposition of more ambitious Section 106 conditions without choking off the supply of land? That would require cross-party agreement about a long-term policy to remove the incentive for landowners to hang on and hope that a future Government will introduce a more advantageous regime.
A friend with long experience in both the housing association and private sectors said to me this week, “Remember the two Harolds”. Not the two Ronnies, but the fact that only under Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson in recent history have there been material state-driven expansions of affordable housing. My right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition may not be called Harold, although though he is a strong admirer of the Labour Harold’s career. I am confident, though, that he and my right honourable friend Angela Rayner would become honorary Harolds if a Labour Government were elected. I am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to hear today from many latter-day Macmillans from the Back Benches opposite, but I hope the Minister’s reply will make up for that.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this debate, I congratulate him on an excellent opening speech, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.
The background to our debate is a rather frightening recent deterioration in the availability of affordable housing. I have just seen the figures out earlier this month, showing a rise of 21,000 children now living in temporary accommodation. The figure has risen from 121,000 to 142,000 over the last five quarters. Temporary accommodation is the best barometer of acute shortages. It is also a hugely expensive alternative to having a sufficient supply of genuinely affordable housing, to use the noble Viscount’s phrase, which is seriously compounding local authorities’ budgetary problems.
The simple reason why tens of thousands of children are being expensively and inappropriately housed in temporary accommodation is that there is just not enough housing to go round. The UK has not been building new homes at an equivalent rate to other European nations. If we had achieved the average new-build output for all members of the European Union, the Centre for Cities estimates that we would have an additional 4.3 million homes nationwide. When there is an overall shortage, it is, of course, those on the lowest incomes who are hardest hit.
The independent Affordable Housing Commission, which reported in 2020, spelled out the twin phenomena of, first, the decline of social housing—namely, provision by councils and housing associations—from 34% to 17% of the nation’s stock and, secondly, the growth of private renting from 9% up to 20%. Simultaneously, there has been the loss of more than 1.5 million social rented homes from sales under the right to buy—more than a third of these are now in the hands of private landlords at much higher rents. The private rented sector is unsuitable or unaffordable for many, so doubling this sector’s size and halving that of social housing has left many households with no options.
To rebalance the market between the private rented sector and the social rented sector, the commonly acknowledged solution is to increase the supply of social rented housing—that is, homes that are let at often half the market rents, according to a formula used for most existing social housing. Several studies have concluded that a figure of around 90,000 such homes should be built every year. Secretary of State Michael Gove told the Lords Built Environment Committee on 6 February this year that
“we need to aim to have a net addition of 30,000 homes for social rent every year”.
This target from the Secretary of State may sound unambitious, but it would mean far greater numbers of social rented homes than have been added in recent years.
However, without major changes, there is no possibility of achieving either the overall government target of 300,000 homes a year or, within that, 30,000 social rented homes. Indeed, rather than there being a growth in supply, output in both the private and social sectors has been falling significantly. Higher interest rates and inflation of building costs mean that social housing grants fund fewer new social rented homes. At the same time, it has become necessary to channel more social housing investment into the existing stock, rather than funding new supply. This follows a number of high-profile cold and mould cases, most notably causing the death of little Awaab Ishak.
With the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 and more powers for the Housing Ombudsman, the housing associations and the stock-holding councils are rightly spending more on retrofitting their existing stock. The result of these trends is a big reduction in the pipeline of new affordable homes. One major housing association, for example, has self-imposed a two-year moratorium on any new development. Overall starts on site by social landlords are expected to fall by more than 30% this year. Meanwhile, because the private sector housebuilders, faced with lower profits, are postponing their developments, fewer new social rent homes are being achieved through planning gain contributions from the developers.
What can be done? I did not declare earlier my housing and property interests, as on the register. A starting point must surely be to have a national housing strategy. This would comprise an agreed vision for achieving the quantity and quality of new and existing homes that we all seek, with a road map to take us to this destination. Following the Church of England’s report Coming Home, a number of noble Lords have been supporting the Church’s subsequent efforts to help create such a strategy. We suggest the establishment of a statutory national housing committee, modelled on the Climate Change Committee. This would provide a long-term mechanism that holds government to account, irrespective of changes of Housing Ministers—we have had 16 in the last 14 years—and Secretaries of State, monitoring progress toward the agreed goals. It would be wonderful if this concept found its way into party-political manifestos.
In the short term, there is no escaping the need for government funding, principally via Homes England and the GLA. Most immediately, more investment is needed for property acquisition and modernisation to switch private rented sector properties into social housing and reverse the shocking rise in temporary accommodation spending—but more fundamental change is needed.
The Labour Party has made bold statements for growth through developing “grey-belt” land and building a new generation of new towns. For initiatives such as these, any Government will need to find ways of making available funding that goes much further and securing a better-resourced planning system. To that end, I advocate adoption of the model spelled out by Sir Oliver Letwin in his excellent report which, disgracefully, has been sitting on the shelf since 2018. The Letwin approach involves ending the dependence on the oligopoly of volume housebuilders, whose interests seldom coincide with the public good, and shifting the initiative for all major housing projects to locally established development corporations. These corporations—which are less susceptible to local opposition—would have CPO powers to acquire land at a price that reflects the content of a master plan that embraces the necessary infrastructure, green space and facilities. The site would then be parcelled out to the appropriate providers, including social landlords, SME builders, community land trusts, providers of retirement housing et cetera. By capturing the uplift in land value for the public good, this model makes possible affordable, quality homes at scale.
In conclusion, I therefore suggest that the way forward begins with establishing a statutory national housing committee, just like the Climate Change Committee, which sets out the path to agreed goals and provides the continuity and persistence to see the job done. To get there, as well as the necessity of more public investment—which is handsomely repaid in lower health, care and welfare spending and improved productivity—there are also bigger and bolder changes of approach to planning and land acquisition that could make a huge difference. It is certainly worth trying, against the backdrop of human misery that the severe underprovision of genuinely affordable housing has created.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Chandos on initiating this debate. I am particularly pleased at the terminology used for the Motion; “genuinely affordable” housing is what we are on about. In the Government’s jargon, “affordable” has become meaningless. In many parts of the country and for hundreds of thousands of families, 80% of private rent levels are not affordable. To use that as a term of art in legislation and regulation on affordable rent and in affordable housing statistics is misleading, given the depth of the problem that we have to address.
I likewise look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes; I hope that she can bring a different perspective to this. I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, except that he has pinched most of what I was going to say—that is not going to shut me up, but I nevertheless agree with pretty much all that he said.
In the days of Lloyd George, to which my noble friend referred, after the First World War about 75% of people lived in private rented accommodation—most of it pretty squalid and a significant part of it very insecure, with the powers of landlords being strong. We transformed that over most of the last century, until relatively recently when we started to go backwards. By the 1980s we were in a position where, since the 1920s, social housing had provided decent housing and affordable prices for a large section of the population, rising to about 30%. Since the 1980s, however, with right to buy without the proceeds being 100% fed back to new building, with demolitions and with stock transfers, that figure for social housing has fallen; it is now down to about 17%. For those in the property market, the prices of new homes have risen from three and a half times average earnings to something over eight times. Mortgage holders, aspiring mortgage holders and private renters are now struggling. For many people, mortgages are now unattainable, and many who had secured mortgages are threatened by the phenomenon of rising interest rates.
In every part of the housing market, there is insecurity, unaffordability and distress. There is also a decline in physical conditions, which I will come on to. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, household formation has continued apace and, according to the figures that everybody has accepted in recent years, we need to build or provide, one way or another, 300,000 new homes a year. We have never attained anything like that figure—the figure that we have from time to time hit 200,000 or slightly over is an exaggeration, as it is a gross figure, not a net one, and does not take account of demolitions.
It has been the case that, for most of the last century, social housing has provided a positive, safe and affordable alternative. Regrettably, that has declined over recent years. There have been a number of scandals in both local authority and housing association accommodation, with mould and damp, unhealthy conditions, and repairs not being addressed. This has made social housing less attractive.
In the days when both the numbers and standards of local authority social housing were improving and setting the benchmark for good housing associations, the relationship between local authorities, social landlords and the construction industry were very different from what they are now, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has implied. On the one hand, local authorities had substantial in-house staff and architects, and had their own direct maintenance staff in most cases; they were likely to be the main procurers of house construction work in their areas. On the other hand, in the days of Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson, the construction sector was highly competitive locally, with a dozen or so SMEs—mainly large family businesses—competing for their local authority’s work. Nowadays, as the noble Lord said, most architect departments and direct works have been dispensed with, and even a competent clerk of works does not exist. The housebuilding sector is dominated by large housebuilders and large developers, which means that the balance of power within the housebuilding market has changed dramatically. We need to do something about that.
There are people who blame the planning system for the lack of new housing provision. It is not perfect, but we do not want to uproot the planning system entirely, because it protects the environments in which people live and the provision of decent housing. It is not the planning system that is the major problem but, frankly, the fact that even when planning permission has been granted there are probably up to a million homes which have not yet been started. It is that, rather than blockages in the planning system, which means that the supply of new homes has been so diminished. The reduction of environmental standards or the loosening of planning restrictions will not speed up that process unless we address it directly, by insuring that starts are made in those areas.
We also have to recognise that the usual figure for new homes completed is the gross figure, not the net figure. In other words, it does not take account of demolitions, particularly those of social housing. I have argued before in this Chamber that the predilection of many developers, and in some cases planning committees, to demolish and rebuild both public and private estates, rather than take the option of retrofit—which is both environmentally more sensible and likely to be much less socially disruptive—is a problem. We need to make sure that, in all major planning permissions, the alternative of retrofit is always considered.
We will need more social housing, and most of it will come from local authorities. As I have said, local authorities have been sadly diminished, financially and in their expert staffing, since their great days. At one point, I thought—or was nearly persuaded—that the idea of having hived-off arm’s-length companies owned by local authorities would help provide social housing, but we have seen local authorities of all political persuasions have their fingers severely burned by going down that road. We need something closer to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, was arguing for—regionally based multi-local authority area corporations to become the major procurer within the housing market and therefore face down the housebuilders in their intentions to, for example, keep the level of social housing low in any mixed development, and then halfway through the project say that they can no longer afford it and get it reduced yet further. That phenomenon must be removed from the housing market.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we need a new housing strategy. Whether that is a housing committee, a housing corporation, or a housing Cabinet committee, I do not mind, as long as we have an overall approach that can face up to all these problems.
For many families and key workers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has said, it is impossible to find a place to live that they can both afford and be safe and secure in. We need to make a change. I hope the Labour Government will make that change. Whoever is running this country in the next few years, the housing problem for the least secure people must be urgently addressed.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, when my colleague, my noble friend Lord Wigley, made his maiden speech in your Lordships’ House, he spoke of his election alongside the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to the other place in 1974. He said:
“It was once suggested that the two of us entered the place as revolutionaries and departed as mere reformers. But if the objectives which we then had, and to which I still aspire, of a new relationship between the nations of these islands can be achieved by reforming the structures of government, that is all to the good … If the process of devolution allows Wales ... to take appropriate decisions on an-all Wales level, and to have its voice heard when other decisions are taken on a wider basis, that is also to the good”.—[Official Report, 27/1/11; col. 1118.]
As I begin my time in your Lordships’ House, I associate myself with those words. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wigley, not only for his many years of dedicated service in your Lordships’ House but for his decades of public and political service to my party, and to Wales. I can only hope to follow in his footsteps and, in time, perhaps, to earn the same level of esteem in which he is held.
It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention, and I know that my noble friend will not mind my saying this, that I look rather different from him. Since my nomination was announced, much comment has been made on my age, the colour of my hair and my choice of footwear. I assure your Lordships that I will be proud to wear my Doc Martens in this place. I am young, I am a woman and I am from Wales. Your Lordships know well that that is not the norm in this place. I am now one of only 36 Members of your Lordships’ House below the age of 50, one of only six below the age of 40, and the only one below the age of 30. I am conscious of the responsibility which now falls to me, not only as the youngest current Member of your Lordships’ House but as the youngest life Peer ever to have been created.
My responsibility as I see it is to not just be my own voice, or that of my party or my country, but to be a voice of my generation. My own experience is of growing up on a council estate in Llanfaes in Ynys Môn, as a young carer to my dear late father: battling on a daily basis the kind of prejudices that too many of our fellow citizens still face; trying to find hope and build a future for myself in a world where the odds seem to be stacked against people like me; and burning with anger at the deprivation to which my community had been subjected.
These experiences are not unique to me. My generation has a particular experience, a particular perspective, which deserves and needs to be reflected in this place. We grew up through the global recession at the end of the first decade of this century. We grew up in the shadow of terrorism, at home and overseas. We grew up with the internet and social media. We grew up in the age of devolution. We grew up with the ever-growing threat and reality of climate change, and mankind’s destruction of the natural world. We grew up at a time of increasing and often aggressive polarisation in our politics, in the age of Trump and Brexit, and we became adults in the age of Covid. During our short lifetimes, we have seen inequality grow and poverty deepen.
Despite our protests, we see world leaders still to respond adequately to the climate and nature crises. We see wealth inequality all around us. We see high debts and housing costs, low wages and unstable work. That is why I am particularly pleased to be making my maiden speech during this debate, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for moving this Motion today.
In August last year, the Wales Expert Group on the cost of living crisis noted that rising rent and mortgage payments are affecting households’ disposable income, and that low-income households are particularly affected. It also said that the full impact of poor housing security is yet to be felt, and that by May 2023 the number of people placed in temporary accommodation, including children, had increased by a third on the previous year. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter Cymru meanwhile says that:
“Young people are not on an even footing with their older peers. They tend to have lower incomes and are more likely to be earning minimum wage, and/or working zero-hour contracts. They are penalised by the UK welfare system, which limits their entitlement to housing benefit, and are routinely discriminated against and exploited by landlords and letting agents when attempting to rent in the private sector”.
Housing is, of course, a devolved subject area, but social security is not. It is the interplay of these two dimensions that is of critical importance. Data shows that, by the spring of last year, around 67,000 people in Wales were on social housing waiting lists, and almost 7,000 were in emergency accommodation. By October of last year, almost 90,000 were on waiting lists, and over 11,000 were in temporary accommodation, of which almost 3,500 were children. Of course, many of us in Wales know all too well the difficulty that so many people—especially young people—face in buying a home in their own community, particularly in the rural and coastal parts of Wales where the Welsh language is the strongest. For these reasons, it is imperative that the voices of young people are included in your Lordships’ deliberations.
Since the announcement of my nomination to this place, I have been quite open in my view that, although I believe that Welsh voices are necessary here now while this place has a say in the laws that govern Wales, I do not believe that an unelected upper Chamber has a place in a modern, democratic society. While I may be in the minority in your Lordships’ House in holding that view, I would not be doing my job if I did not continue to express it. Nevertheless, it is my intention to be constructive in my contributions here, and I look forward to offering my perspective and sharing my voice in your Lordships’ deliberations, and I look for your support as I do that.
In closing, I thank my supporters—my noble friend Lord Wigley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and all those noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken the time to welcome me and offer me their advice since my arrival. I have been touched and humbled by the welcome that I have received, and I also offer my thanks to Black Rod, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the security services, the police and the many and various members of staff, both party and parliamentary, who have all been unfailingly warm and courteous in the welcome that they have given me.
I thank my friends in the other place and I look forward to working alongside them in Wales’s interests. Finally, I thank my family and friends for the love and support that they have given me. I am the person I am because of them, and I can only hope to do them proud. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, whom I will call my noble friend because constructive, co-operative politics has to be the way forward in this changing, challenging world. I am delighted to congratulate her on her spectacular maiden speech. The voice of Wales has very definitely been heard, as it so often has been heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The arrival of Doc Martens has been duly noted. We need to hear many more younger voices in your Lordships’ House, and I hope that she will not be the youngest Member for too long. She and her peers are the experts in the experience of being a young person in the world today. It is crucial, and I have no doubt at all that she will bring so much of that voice to us.
As we have just heard, and as the noble Baroness told the Times, she plans to stand up for the people of Wales. Of course, as a former chief of staff for Plaid Cymru in the Senedd, and having worked in the European Parliament, she brings great experience and knowledge from that. We are also talking, of course, about the balance of representation. In respect of gender, we are still a very, very long way from the 50:50 Parliament that the excellent campaign group of that name is calling for. There is also an issue about age. We desperately need these experiences. The newspapers have also got very excited about the noble Baroness’s desire—which I share—to replace your Lordships with an elected body. She, with greater cause than me, has great reason to ensure that she does not have a life sentence in your Lordships’ House.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for giving us the opportunity to debate this absolutely crucial issue, and particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, commented, on the way the debate is titled in talking about “genuinely affordable housing”. That qualifier is needed because, of course, we now have something of a word soup of terms relating to the kinds of housing tenure. There is the Government’s term “affordable rent” and the related “intermediate rent”. Affordable rent was introduced in 2021, set at 80% of market rates, inclusive of charges. Intermediate rent is also available, but at levels of about 20% lower than the market rate, primarily to lower-income households in London and the south-east. We have the London living rent, introduced to help middle-income earners save for a deposit to purchase a house. We have shared ownership—a form of tenure that, all too often, we increasingly hear, is not so much a step up on to the housing ladder as a great weight around the neck of people who are unable to escape from service charges and unaffordable mortgages. We have the first home scheme—a kind of discounted market sale house offered at a minimum reduction of 30% against the market value. We have to hope that there are not too many people in the current level of mortgage rates who find that also a great burden.
We have to look at this in the context of how genuinely affordable housing rent—what has been termed a “genuine living rent”—can be calculated. The general rule is that households should not have to spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. That is in a broader frame of what is known as the 50:30:20 rule: households should be able to spend 50% of their income on their needs and 30% on their wants, and have 20% available for paying off a debt or saving. There are very few households in the UK today that are in that situation—the situation that we should actually aim for.
If we look at some figures from the National Housing Federation, we see that it estimates that by the end of the next Parliament, one in five households—more than 4.8 million households—will be forced to spend more than 30% of their income on rent. That is an increase of 30% on the figures now.
Of course, the other end of this rather disastrous housing pipeline is rough sleeping. We all see this every day—we see it on the streets around your Lordships’ House. There has been a 20% increase in rough sleeping in the last year, and 280,000 households in temporary accommodation.
I have done the depressing stuff; I want to focus on the positive—just a hint of what is possible. For this I am going to Lewes District Council, and Fort Road in Lewes. In 2020, the council took a disused council office building there and replaced it with an award-winning block of 13 council-owned apartments, providing safe, spacious, bright apartments with a very high level of building performance and a renewable energy strategy. Designed using fabric-first principles, they have a large solar photovoltaic array, with 13 individual domestic batteries. That means that the electricity costs are estimated to be 60% below the normal level. The house also, importantly, has fire safety features which are currently not required but are anticipated for the future, with fireproof materials and cutting-edge suppression systems. These are not only affordable quality homes but are very safe to live in—something we need to think more about.
I point to this because it is not simply a one-off. I go to announcements made by the Green leader of Lewes District Council, councillor Zoe Nicholson, who in March pointed out how the council has purchased brownfield land around the Peacehaven golf club and is hoping to also develop a council-owned brownfield site in Ringmer. Twenty-four homes will be built on the Peacehaven site and more homes on these other sites. The council is also looking at old garage sites: 11 locations that could see 45 new homes.
I focus on that because both the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Whitty, focused on a centralised, national approach to solving our housing crisis. There is no doubt that resources and changing regulations and rules need to come from the centre, but I argue that we need to resource local authorities to provide the housing they need in their local community according to their local desires, rather than having something enforced from the centre.
The need for change in the centre comes to one particular issue that I want to focus on in this speech, which is right to buy. That has been one of the enormous privatisations, continued over decades under Governments of different hues, that has done great damage to our national social structure and our communities, and continues to do so. I spoke about the exciting things happening in Lewes; similar things happened a few years ago in Norwich, in Goldsmith Street, where ultra-low-energy Passivhaus homes just outside the city centre were built in 2019 and won the RIBA Stirling Prize for architecture. However, after three years, the tenants have the right to buy, and it now looks as if Norwich will lose a number of those brilliant social homes to the private sector.
Of course, this has happened to 2 million homes since 1980. Norwich has more than 4,000 people on the waiting list, yet there and all around the country, we are still losing more social homes than we manage to build. I have a question for the Minister: what is the current rate of loss of social homes to right to buy? I also have a question that perhaps noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench might like to address: why do they not plan to abandon this disastrous policy of privatisation?
I come now to some of the other costs. I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Councils are spending £1.74 billion a year on temporary accommodation. This situation is a large part of what is driving councils towards bankruptcy. On LGA figures, 10,896 homes were sold in the last financial year under right to buy, and only 3,447 were replaced—a net loss of more than 7,000 homes. Since the scheme began, £7.5 billion has been handed out in discounts through right to buy.
I am not sure that many people know about this, but it is worth highlighting that, in desperation, Wandsworth Council in south-west London is offering £120,000 help to tenants to buy a house anywhere in the UK—or anywhere in the world—provided it is not a council property. The council is so desperate to save its homes that it is offering people this very large sum of money. I note that four in 10 of the homes sold off under right to buy are now owned by private landlords. I talked about the cost of temporary accommodation, but we also have the massive cost of commercial-level rents on what were council homes for which the state is having to pay housing benefit. This is, clearly, a disastrous policy.
We knew that from the start because the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, back at the origins of this policy, said that
“no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the State”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/80; col. 1443.]
That is, under that ideology, a description of reducing the size of the state, but of course what we are actually doing is making all our communities and our societies much poorer.
What we should be doing is moving towards a housing policy that treats homes as comfortable, affordable, secure places to live, not primarily as financial assets. So my final question to the Minister is about community land trusts, co-operative housing and other alternative tenure models. I absolutely champion council housing, but there are other models that can protect communities from the government policy of right to buy. What are the Government doing to encourage them?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chandos for tabling this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on a powerful and, if I may say so, very feisty speech. I was moved at the sheer amount of responsibility she has had to take on at so young an age, and I look forward very much to hearing more such contributions.
Two events this week highlighted the timeliness and importance of this debate. In the upper waiting-room above Central Lobby, there is an exhibition of photographs of families living in temporary accommodation in the Manchester area. A mum with three kids said, “After I was evicted … the first temporary accommodation was for two years. It is a long time. The school was three miles away. If I was late or the kids could not get there, it looked bad for school reports and stuff”. Another mum said, “When you look at other children, they are able to eat proper meals and things like that. My son has had infection after infection. Since we have moved after the hotels, I have been to A&E just under 15 times”.
The exhibition is well worth seeing. It was organised by the APPG on homelessness. In opening it, Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP urged the need for a long-term solution that crossed social divides and party-politics. That plea was echoed in the second of the two events I referred to, the launch of the Church of England’s report, Homes for All: A Vision for England’s Housing System, which was referred to by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Echoing the conclusions of other reports, notably from the National Housing Federation and Shelter, the report identified that the housing crisis continues to escalate, perpetuated by a lack of policy stability, ambition and urgency across successive Governments, and a failure to connect the issues through a systematic and co-ordinated approach. The Minister and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage both spoke eloquently at the event.
It is clear that a change in approach is needed. There are currently over 8 million people in England who cannot access the housing they need. For 4.2 million of these—around 1.6 million households—social rented housing would be the most appropriate tenure to address that need. Our failure to deliver the homes we need is breaking down our communities. It is driving families and key workers into financial hardship, and away from work, schools and support networks.
Some groups of people are feeling this crisis even more acutely. Black, Asian and minority ethnic households, and disabled people, are more likely to experience homelessness or live in poor-quality, unsuitable or overcrowded homes. Women’s Aid points to the lack of affordable housing as a primary barrier to those escaping abuse.
Yet, despite our severe housing emergency, the supply of genuinely affordable housing is falling. Last year, 29,000 social homes were sold or demolished, and fewer than 7,000 were built. Many households are now forced to live in expensive, insecure and often poor-quality homes in the private rented sector.
Most damning of all is the impact of this crisis on children. A record number of children are homeless and are forced to live in inadequate temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfasts. This disrupts their education, affects their life chances and puts huge pressure on families, as the exhibition I referred to so graphically illustrates. Some 138,000 children are currently living in temporary accommodation, and this is estimated to rise to 310,000 by 2045 without government action. These figures are a stark illustration that a radical change in approach is urgently needed.
I hope the Minister will not respond to this debate simply by asserting the work that the Government are doing, a lot of it good, and the number of homes currently being built. Whatever that number, it simply is not enough. I urge the Minister to focus on the key question in her response: how do we increase supply?
For those at the sharp end of the housing crisis, we need to build 90,000 new social homes every year to keep up with demand. In 2010, the amount of grant funding available for new social housing was cut by 63%. The consequences of this decision have been dire. Does the Minister agree that we need a new, long-term and substantial grant programme that can be used more flexibly to deliver new social homes, regenerate and refurbish existing homes and acquire more existing homes where appropriate?
Does the Minister agree that we need bold planning reforms to deliver the highest possible level of affordable housing, incorporating new, large, mixed-tenure communities? My party recently announced proposals to allow grey-belt development, which includes 50% affordable housing. This is a welcome step in the right direction.
Does the Minister agree that government funding and fiscal rules need to be reviewed to incentivise long-term public investment in social housing? I must also ask the Minister to comment on the need to invest in a skilled workforce if this ambition is to be realised. Does she agree that the Government must ensure that there is resilience within the supply chain and workforce while unlocking innovation in the construction industry, which could include exploring new technology and supporting new methods of delivery?
There are huge economic benefits to be gained. We need to move away from the outdated idea that social housing is a drag on the public purse. In fact, it is a long-term driver of sustainable growth. Every £1 invested in social housing delivers at least double that of wider economic benefits. Recent research from the National Housing Federation and Shelter, carried out by Cebr, showed the positive economic impact of building social housing. These include savings on housing benefit, reduced homelessness, increased employment and improved healthcare.
I have said before in other debates that building social homes that meet local need can offer stability in people’s lives. This helps people to get and keep work, and reduces the long-term scarring effect that being homeless or in temporary housing can have on employment prospects. It also supports children’s education and the mental and physical health of families.
I support the Archbishop of Canterbury’s report in its call for an end to “short-termism” in housing policy and its advocacy for decent homes across England. As the report states, everyone should have a home that is comfortable and safe. Sadly, and to our shame, decades of piecemeal and short-term policy have left us with a failing housing system that is affecting our health and well-being and costing our country billions. It is also holding back our economy and making communities unsustainable.
The housing crisis is a complex problem. It will take long-term political commitment, investment and collaboration across government and with partners across the country. I echo the call from the noble Lord, Lord Best, reflected in the Church of England’s report, for a housing strategy committee, modelled on the Climate Change Committee or the Low Pay Commission, which will hold the Government to account.
Does the Minister agree that, to meet the scale of the challenge we face, there needs to be a comprehensive and policy-led long-term national plan, agreed in its fundamentals across political parties, with the Government in partnership with local authorities and the social housing sector? Perhaps then we can begin to solve this worsening housing crisis.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this important debate and applaud the maiden address from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I assure her that the House will welcome now and into the future her spirited advocacy, not least for Wales.
I think the inadequacy of the UK’s housing provision, adversely affecting most in our society—the middle classes as well as the poor—is our most pressing national problem. It is a problem many decades in the making and I do not think that we will resolve any specific aspect of housing difficulty without addressing the totality of housing provision in the round, right across the United Kingdom.
Around 300,000 people—there are some slight differences in the figures that noble Lords have cited, but I am sure we all have good sources—including 200,000 children, are without a home and live in temporary accommodation, in shelters or with friends. One million households are on council waiting lists. According to the English Housing Survey, 4 million live in substandard homes, in the oldest housing stock in Europe. One-third of under-34s still live with their parents and struggle to buy a home. Home ownership overall is in decline. At the same time, our population is growing rapidly. In addition, more of us live longer and young people form single-person households and marry later. For these many reasons and others, overall demand for housing is increasing rapidly. Yet housing provision—as pretty much everybody has said—has manifestly not kept pace with growing demand.
As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, was the first to remind us, just over 100 years ago, just after the First World War, the then Government began building “homes fit for heroes”. I do not think anybody has mentioned that in 1953, under a Conservative Government, social housing build peaked at 200,000 units per year. I think this is the most remarkable statistic. Today, there are 2 million fewer units of social housing than there were 40 years ago. You do not have to look very far to see at least one of the root causes of our housing malaise.
What are we doing to close that awesome deficit? Not much—local authority and housing association build in recent years has been around a modest 20,000 units per year. A huge increase in private renting, which has doubled over two decades, has taken the strain, often with poor quality, underinvested housing.
Many factors, most of which have been mentioned, stand in the way of increased homebuilding, including planning restraints, land hoarding and shortages of skilled labour. Estimates vary on the scale of the overall housing gap—the gap between demand and supply—but all are in the range of 1 million and 2 million homes. That is a measure of just how far behind we are from where we need to be. Despite the recent improvements in housebuilding, it is a very long journey to get anywhere near to filling that gap. The noble Lord, Lord Barwell, put the issue simply and bluntly, and I think everybody here would agree, when he said that building more of every level of housing is what is needed.
I echo what a number of others have said in this excellent debate so far. We need to take out a clean sheet of paper and build a new housing strategy from scratch. What we have been doing in recent decades has simply not been working. We need to create a plan developed from a national, not regional or local, perspective. This is not for housing in our precious green belt, of course, but near where people work. We need a strategy for housing close to services, which is well-insulated, with decarbonised heating, and of beauty—something which the UK has achieved brilliantly again and again in our history and must do again.
We will not solve our housing crisis overnight. It will take 10 to 15 years of systematic hard work to do that. However, we will not resolve it at all without, as others have said, speedily framing a comprehensive national plan that addresses and deals with the many causes of our most pernicious national problem.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to address this very important issue, which affects all of us directly or indirectly. I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, in Ynys Môn. She certainly made us aware of the fact that she will represent the interests of Wales during her time here, but perhaps the extra value will come from what she has to say about a generation that many of us have long left behind. It is wonderful to welcome a fellow Welsh person, and on such an important issue.
Many speakers have quoted statistics of one kind or another. Some, by the weight of repetition, have brought home in a focused way the needs of the moment and the dire situation in which this whole area is dragged down. One statistic that has not been mentioned is that we are in the year of the 16th Housing Minister since 2010. Having 16 Housing Ministers in 14 years is not something to glide over or just have a chuckle about; it represents where housing sits on the agenda of this present Government. We must, therefore, as gravely as we can, point to that. We would like to wish the present Minister in our House a long life in her current job, but there is a bit of me that does not want to go that far in this year of grace.
We have to admit that initiatives, programmes and financial packages have been attempted or implemented by the present Government that we should at least recognise as pointing in a direction that we all want to travel in. However, the House magazine issued just a month ago, focusing on housing, recognised that this is a moment of crisis, when the Government are facing unprecedented pressure over their housing record. I like to quote voices other than those of our own parties, to make the points that need to be made as being more general than simply the result of one’s own party-political position.
The wonderful briefing notes that we had from the Library omitted from the title of the report one word which is integral to my noble friend’s Motion before us—the word “genuinely”. As others have mentioned quite properly, if “affordable” just means 20% off the going rate, it is certainly not affordable for the large majority of people. So “genuinely” must claim its place in the phrasing of this Motion and in our discussion of the issues it raises. House prices are 8.3 times higher than the median wage, which means that even people with 20% or 30% discounts will not be able easily to arrange mortgages or pay rents. We have heard how many of them have to resort to alternative forms of accommodation because housing is now beyond them.
I hesitated long and hard before putting my name down to speak in this debate, because I have never owned a house in my entire life. I have lived in tied accommodation, and so many of the issues mentioned here have never been within my direct experience. But I have three children, and these issues lie very definitely within the ambit of my children’s generation. They themselves have come up with mixed responses, and abilities and inabilities, as to how to fashion a housing future for themselves.
It is admittedly a very complex area. National plans and strategies have been mentioned again and again, and they have to take in many diverse and often conflictual strands of experience. I received, as I am sure we all have, briefings ahead of this debate—for example, from Women’s Aid—about not forgetting the needs of women who have been domestically abused, who will have housing needs. Then there is the news that there is no guarantee that the ban on no-fault evictions can be implemented before the election. That took us all by surprise too, and affected radically the way we were thinking about a particular piece of legislation before us at the moment. Then the Residential Freehold Association came in, all guns firing, to have its own particular interest defended too.
It has all left me feeling, in agreement with those who have said it already, that we need some kind of bipartisan national effort for what is a universal need. It is no good having my plan versus your plan; rather, we need to be thinking together to achieve an outcome that would and can, as is the only way, benefit the world at large.
I have a couple of personal examples, which I use not because of the personalities involved but for illustrative purposes. I have been in conversation this week with a young person—although it is some time since I was young. Having graduated during the Covid years, and looking to his future career and the rest of it, he has received a very good offer of a further degree in one of our prestigious universities. But as he says, unless he can find funding, with £48,500-worth of debt already, how does he do it? Some £3,500 of that debt is the interest accrued on the debt last year—what is that all about? We are eliminating this from the frame of young people’s possibilities and needs, by the punitive way that these things happen.
I shall perhaps a bit more personal, if noble Lords will permit me. My parents divorced when I was a child. I still have at home, and I thought to bring it, just to wave it around, the letter from my father’s lawyer that ordered my mother and her boys out of the family home at one week’s notice. It was October. The winter was nigh on. We had nowhere to go. In the little locality where I lived, various neighbours took us in for a week or a few days at a time until my grandparents, who were caretakers in a factory, decided that they would share the three rooms that they lived in with my mother and her two boys, so I was raised in one room in a brickyard. I mention this not to alarm people or to draw attention in some kind of pathos moment, but because I can never forget my mother’s feelings, which were never expressed verbally, of panic, fear, depression, and—what the Centre for Economics and Business Research refers to as being the case for people who have gone through that—long-term scarring. Long-term scarring is what people who have been thrown on the garbage heap carry with them for the rest of their lives. I have to say that in my worst moments I give evidence of it myself. I feel that we must keep in view the needs at large of young people, marginalised people and those who have no hope or stake in society when we utter our fine words, analyse the statistics and form the resolve that as a nation we need to do better than we are doing right now.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on a tremendous speech, one that I—as someone with forebears from the beautiful island of Ynys Môn, or Anglesey if you prefer, one of the most beautiful places in the world—particularly welcome. She is very welcome, and I am sure will be a tremendous asset to this House. I also thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for introducing this debate. In his and all the other contributions, a powerful case has been made. I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope she will adopt a constructive response to what has been said rather than just defending the Government’s record. We have to look to the future and to what needs to be done.
I am going to talk about the crying need for more council housing, especially but not necessarily for those on lower incomes. This need has become increasingly critical, given today’s housing crisis, which has been so ably laid out by previous speakers. I emphasise that I am talking about council housing: housing that is publicly owned and subject to a degree of democratic accountability, where tenants have secure tenancies and rents are, in general, substantially lower than in other forms of renting. As a result, as has been argued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Council Housing, it offers the only real opportunity for mass affordable rented housing in the whole of the UK. There is obviously a significant role for other forms of social housing, but the long-term sustainable solution to the problems we face relies on council housing.
Extraordinarily, it is one of those areas of social policy where we know what works but, for one reason or another, are blind to what needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, joined us briefly—he is not here now—to make the point from the opposite Benches about the success of the Macmillan housing programme. That depended on council housing; it was not done by private developers. The success of our new towns, to which I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will refer in winding up, relied on council housing. We know it works. Council housing provided millions of families with their first opportunity of a decent family home. For one reason or another, we choose to ignore that success.
The changes we have seen in housing during the last decades, have resulted in pushing low-income families into insecure, substandard housing, with overcrowding and—to an increasingly worrying extent—homelessness. Council housing has played a crucial role in ensuring a basic standard of living and security for all.
The case for expanding the use of council housing is grounded in both social justice and economic practicalities. First, I believe that housing is a fundamental human right, crucial for personal stability, dignity and family life. By providing more council housing, Governments can directly support those in need, fulfilling their basic responsibility toward their citizens. Secondly, as other speakers have mentioned, low-income families often spend a disproportionate amount of their earnings on housing, squeezing what is available for other essentials such as food, healthcare and education. More council housing, with socially appropriate rents, would increase disposable income levels, leading to greater consumer spending and more contentment with human life, but also economic growth. Thirdly, councils provide stable and affordable homes for low-income families, reducing their risk of homelessness with the associated social costs which come back on all of us. Finally, having a secure living environment can lead to better educational outcomes for children, greater employment opportunities for adults, and overall improved health for families. Not for nothing were health and housing in a single ministry in the Government following the last war. Good health requires and needs good housing.
From a broader perspective, increased investment in council housing can stimulate the economy. Construction projects—of which there are all too few at the moment—generate jobs, boost local businesses and can lead to the revitalisation of undeveloped areas.
Given the manifest need for more council housing, we must talk about the adverse, malign effects of right to buy. While the scheme has allowed many tenants to achieve home ownership and has been popular among those who have benefited from it, its long-term implications for the availability and affordability of housing have been malign. Clearly, there has been this massive reduction in the stock of social housing that has been referred to, but we have seen that many of those properties which were sold to create this property-owning democracy have been bought up by commercial letting agents. We end up with families still relying on rented accommodation, provided more expensively by the private sector and of not such a good standard.
That has led to a reduction in social cohesion and, although there is not time today to go through all the details, an adverse effect on the financial stability of local authorities—it is one of the major factors in why local authorities are facing the problems they are—and to lengthening housing lists and more people in need of accommodation. To address this problem, we require a comprehensive strategy involving the multiple stakeholders involved, but government at all levels must commit to long-term funding and policy support for council housing development. Public support is essential. Community involvement in planning and decision-making can ensure that developments meet local needs and integrate well with existing neighbourhoods.
I particularly emphasise the importance of cottage estates. That is the sort of housing people want to live in. All too often the financial rules on the development of new housing force the building of flats, which are fine for some, but the great majority of people want to live in the cottage estates that we built between the wars and during the 1950s, but which for some reason are no longer being built in the numbers people require. It is a matter of some concern that Goldsmith Street in Norwich, a Stirling prize-winning development that was built as council housing, is now to be sold off to the private sector for right to buy. This simply has to stop.
Increasing the availability of council housing is a pivotal step towards addressing the housing affordability crisis and the support that is required for low-income families. Not only will it provide the basic need for shelter, but it will serve as an economic catalyst and promote social equity. By prioritising this approach, Governments can make significant strides towards a more stable and just society.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I shall say a few words in the gap. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton; he has brought some passion to this debate, and rightly so. I identify with that passion, having just read in the book This Boy by Alan Johnson, a former Labour Minister in the previous Labour Government, about the way he and his sister fought to secure a place to live after they lost their mother in the 1950s in London. Going back to that would be a disgrace, and we have to ensure that that never happens.
I warmly congratulate my noble friend—it is nice to be able to say “my noble friend” in the narrow rather than broad sense in this Chamber—on a memorable maiden speech; llongyfarchiadau. I hope she will inspire many more of her generation, across party-political boundaries, to follow her lead and find a way to get their voice heard in this Chamber. We need a spectrum that includes all the ages that can participate and educate us.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for facilitating this short debate and particularly for his reference to my constituency predecessor David Lloyd George. The fight for social justice ran through the early decades of the century, as in the 1950s and 1960s and indeed in the last century, and we obviously have to grasp it again.
I first entered Parliament 50 years ago, as my noble friend graphically described, and housing remains a pressing issue, particularly for young people, so it is good to have a persuasive voice for them in this Chamber, one who can speak effectively for the needs of Wales and of course for Plaid Cymru. I am glad to welcome my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes to her place in this Chamber. I congratulate her again on her maiden speech and hope that we hear much more from her on these social issues, as well as the battle facing us in Wales.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declared interests, as I work in housing and planning in various ways. It is an immense interest of mine. That work came out of policy reviews for successive Governments in this arena.
Before I turn to the issue at hand, I want to address a few comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She made an excellent maiden speech. I remember making my own in the other place rather a long time ago as the then youngest Member of Parliament just elected. She may possibly match one record I think I still have. Ten years later I was still the youngest Member of Parliament. I have a suspicion she may achieve something similar in this place, but we will see.
I have one word of advice. One comes in and people think of you as radical because you are young. Time passes and you are no longer young, but it is very important to remain radical. I have always been a firm believer that the people who should be here, or in the other place or in any other form of public life, should be those who want to change things. Holding on to that is not always easy when you are the beneficiary of the establishment, so I hope—I think she will, to judge by her speech—she will remember that.
Turning to change, it is clear from the speeches across the House how much concern there is, irrespective of party, about the difficulties people have in finding a home. It can be addressed as affording a home, but the truth is that it is finding a home because there are literally millions of people in this country who do not have the home they would wish for. Much of that is hidden. It is young adults living with their parents far beyond the length of time they used to. It is people in inappropriately small accommodation who need larger family accommodation. It is people in flats with children who deserve gardens. It is people in houses in multiple occupation, each of whom should have their own home.
There is a simple fundamental reason for this. It is not addressed by simply saying, “Oh well, the planning system is not really the problem; it is the developers”, or “We need to have more affordable homes”. The fundamental underlying reason is that we have not been building enough homes for decades. We have failed to build enough not by a small amount, but by a very large amount. In the last decade, for all the Government have done, we were about 1 million homes short of what we know needed to be built. In the decade before that, we were at least another 1 million homes short of the numbers we knew we needed to build.
While the 300,000 figure is pretty much universally acclaimed, let us remember what it is built off. Around 250,000 of that is merely addressing the demographic need. The remaining 50,000, which comes originally from work by Kate Barker in two reviews, was a very slow process of building back the undersupply that, at that time, was 1 million or so homes over a decade. It is now 2 million homes over two decades. The figure of 300,000 is only slow progress over many years to address the under-provision that has taken place over so long. Kate Barker said that there is only so fast you can go without causing an impact on house prices that will destabilise household finances. That is properly right. But the truth is that we are coming nowhere near to what needs to be provided.
In my remaining time, I want briefly to address the history of this. Between the two great wars, we were delivering enough homes. It was largely done through the private sector, but also the “homes fit for heroes” policy and the rest of it. Part of the reason for that was that there was a ready supply of land. Anyone who owned land could build on it or sell it to be built on. The problem was that, as people no longer had to walk from home to work or to the shop, and they became able to move more freely, we saw the spread of suburbanisation around towns and cities, and the coastlines and countryside being built up. That is why, after campaigning by organisations like the CPRE, we saw the planning Acts introduced in the 1940s.
However, when they introduced the planning Acts, they knew full well the impacts of restricting the ability to build, so they set out a clear strategy to make sure that enough homes were built. First, they said you should renew the bombed-out cities and the slums—in effect, a form of brownfield first. It was urban renewal, but not with densification and towers; it was on garden city principles of removing the dense slums and giving people decent homes with gardens. You see that in London and the other cities around the UK. We seem to have forgotten that lesson, because what we are building today is not fit for families, as we densify, go up and build flats.
I do not know how many Members of the House of Lords choose to live in a flat as their main home. I suspect some do for second homes. I asked this question when I did a planning review at a time when 45% of all homes being built were flats—it will be similar now. I asked: what proportion of the public did not have to live in a flat because that is all they could afford or because it was a moment in their lifetime? How many actually wanted to live in one? The answer was that, while 45% were being built as flats, just over 1% wanted to live in them.
This is a country where, particularly when you go through the stages of family life, you want access to gardens and open space. Of course there is a role for flats—there is in every country—but we need to remember that those buildings turn to slums very quickly when people who cannot afford to maintain them are in them. Councils could not maintain them and housing associations struggle to maintain them because, over time, their lift shafts, heating systems and windows need to be renewed. All of that is enormously expensive for these properties. I fear that we have forgotten that, the last time we did this, they turned into slums. I fear they will turn into slums again—particularly with offers for the private sector to buy buildings that have been built with 40-year or 50-year lifespans and no intention of renewing them in the long run.
Secondly, they wanted urban renewal around the edges, but they understood that you do not want parasitic development with no facilities and poor-quality housing that destroys historic communities—the towns, villages and cities that we love. They wanted planned urban extensions that would have facilities, schools, hospitals, shops and neighbourhoods. We understand these here in London—we all understand the process of city by neighbourhood, with each neighbourhood in walking distance of the facilities you need for everyday life. That is how they planned those urban extensions, but we have forgotten that. We build housing estates with no facilities at all, cut off from shops and schools. We talk about them as sustainable extensions, but they are anything but; they are just dormitories for people with cars, with no facilities and people struggling to get a dentist or a doctor’s appointment, or struggling to find a school on the other side of town. Everyone in them has to drive because all the facilities are scattered around.
Thirdly, they said that, if you built well in the cities and urban centres on the brownfield sites, there would not be enough homes. If you built well in the urban extensions around the towns and cities but respected people’s desire for them to remain historic places, there would not be enough homes. So you also needed to create new communities, using the ideas of Ebenezer Howard and the new towns programme. Why do we forget that lesson? It is what we need today. The answer is: in the late 1970s, we built enough homes and it worked, but we stopped. When the demographic numbers started to go up again—because people lived longer in their own homes, there was more migration and more babies were born—we forgot all those lessons and started to try to build towers in cities and little urban housing estates around the edges, pretending that you could deliver communities by delivering a minimum number of homes.
We need to go back to the origins of planning and plan long term for place and how places evolve. We need to stop fighting about whether it is 20, 30, 40 or 50 homes this year or next.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I add my welcome, or croeso, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and thank her for her excellent speech. I do not share her youth, sadly, or her hair colour —I may have done back in the day—or Doc Martens, but I did grow up in a council house, as she did, and I share her strong passion for housing. I think that she will find quite a good cross-party housing coalition in your Lordships’ House and I look forward to working with her on that. I thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for bringing such an important debate before your Lordships’ House today and all noble Lords who have spoken. My noble friend gave an excellent, thorough and cogent introduction to this very important debate.
I start by emphasising the words in the Motion, “genuinely affordable housing”, as did my noble friends Lord Whitty, Lord Griffiths and Lady Warwick. Unfortunately, the term “affordable housing” has become widely misused in recent years. For example, in my Question for Short Debate last week on right-to-buy receipts and how they should be used—in my view, entirely to replace the social housing from which they accrue—the Minister seemed to use the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing” as though they were interchangeable; they are not. That is particularly so given the rather dubious definition of affordable housing used by this Government, which includes six categories of housing, only one of which would be affordable on average wages in my area.
Shelter tells us that the focus for the definition of affordable housing should be on social housing, which is the only housing with rent pegged to local incomes, is resilient to local fluctuations in house prices and is usually the most affordable type of housing. It also provides secure tenancies, which enable people to secure employment and establish themselves in communities.
Let me say, by the way, that I in no way intend to be personally critical of the Minister in my comments. I have met many of the succession of Housing Ministers we have had since 2010—I think that there have now been 16, which does not help—and this conflation of affordable and social housing happens more often than not. I know that she is committed to using her time in housing to improve matters where she can.
The Government definition means even a private house selling for over £300,000 can be designated affordable. For residents in my area, with an average wage of about £35,000, that is absolutely not affordable. Homes now cost eight times the average salary. The average three-bedroom, private-rented home in my area costs £1,400 a month; that would mean almost 60% of average income being used for housing costs—no wonder we have a cost of living crisis. In contrast, a three-bedroom council home in my area costs £524 a month.
My noble friend Lord Chandos is right to point out that the extraordinary stranglehold that this Government have put on local government has hollowed out both planning functions and housing development teams. We know that the building of social homes has fallen off a cliff. Last year, 29,000 social homes were sold or demolished, including over 10,000 right-to-buy sales, and only 7,000 were built. We have 1.2 million on housing waiting lists and 1.4 million fewer families in social housing than there were in 1980. The cost of this falls significantly on the taxpayer in housing benefit and, secondly, on council tax payers, with £1.7 billion for the cost of temporary and emergency accommodation last year. The outstanding report by Cebr for the National Housing Federation and Shelter, flagged the impressive £51.2 billion benefit to the economy that would accrue from building 90,000 social homes and also pointed to the social benefits of stable, secure tenancies in relation to employment, healthcare, helping people out of the vicious cycle of temporary and emergency accommodation, lower crime and the education benefit for children and young people.
This crisis in social housing delivery is just one of the factors impacting the affordability of housing—I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies that good housing should be a human right. As we have heard, there are many others, including: housing supply, which was not helped by the Government caving in over housing targets at the end of last year; the imbalance of demand; the planning system and its failure to deliver against housing need; quality and sustainability; and the need to meet higher environmental standards, which we welcome but is causing a slowdown.
In the excellent Church of England report, Homes for All, published this week and mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the need for a comprehensive housing strategy with a vision for the next 20 to 30 years is set out very powerfully—and I agree with it. The failure to have a vision for housing and a clear plan of how it should be implemented is at the heart of this issue, and reflects many of the recent discussions in Parliament. It is why we have ended up with a Bill to ban leasehold that ignores 70% of leasehold properties in this country, which are flats, and neither does it scrap the scandalous money-for-nothing regime of ground rent. We will shortly have a Renters (Reform) Bill, which was intended to ban Section 21 evictions but will not do so because, in spite of being years in the planning, the mechanisms are not in place to make the change. There can be no greater indictment of 14 years of Tory housing policy than 142,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation.
After the Second World War, there was a Labour Government with a real vision for housing, especially when it came to replacing the slums and other housing that had been destroyed across the country with new developments designed to support communities, and with all the facilities that they would need. My town, Britain’s first new town, was the first post-war manifestation of that vision, which built on the tradition of the pre-war Garden Cities. I will not pretend it was easy; the tradition of the nimby goes back a very long way—in fact, I found an example from 1539, but I will leave it for now. Poor John Silkin, the Housing Minister in 1946, arrived in the small market town of Stevenage—population around 6,000—to tell them, at a very noisy public meeting, that the new town would add 60,000 homes. He found that the railway sign for Stevenage had been replaced with one that said “Silkingrad”. Let us hope that better consultation and collaboration can avoid such situations in the future.
It is time to be bold and visionary again. It is time to get Britain building to enable millions to plan their lives, start families, and build a future for themselves and their kids. It is time to meet the needs of those who aspire to own their home and those for whom social housing will be the only affordable option. It is time to make sure that key workers can live wherever they work, across the country—they are our heroes, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said—and have the high-quality housing that they deserve. It is time to get the economic benefit that can come from reinvigorating construction and development, giving investors the confidence they seek by focusing on the builders, not the blockers, and ensuring that SME builders get the support they need.
That is why my party has set out our vision to get Britain building again, with a package of reforms to the planning system. The aim is to build 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament, alongside our five golden rules. I will take no lessons from the Green Party, who say one thing in this Chamber while its councillors block building all over the country.
Our plan includes a housing recovery plan, a blitz of planning reform to quickly boost housebuilding for homes to buy and rent, and delivery of the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. We will ensure that local people have a say in how housing is built, with communities confident that the plans they have worked on will be delivered. We have plans for the next generation of new towns—“Hurrah!”, says this new-town girl—which will be new communities with beautiful homes, green spaces, reliable transport links and bustling high streets. We will work with the local development corporations described by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We will unleash mayors, with a package of devolution with stronger planning powers and control over housing investment.
There will be a planning passport for urban brownfield development, with fast-track approval and delivery of high-density housing on urban brownfield sites. We will prioritise those poor-quality and ugly areas of green belt, so that they become grey belt, which will protect the nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the green belt. The plans for the grey belt must have a target of at least 50% affordable housing. There will be first dibs for first-time buyers, and support for younger people by giving them the first chance at homes in new housing developments, with a government-backed mortgage scheme.
I end with a quote from the preface of Homes For All:
“What could that vision look like? An end to the stress and worry of being locked out of home ownership. Everyone having a safe, warm home that supports their health. Homes for all that release the constraints of poverty. All of us going into our later years with the sense of comfort and dignity that comes from a secure place to live. Every child having the stable foundation they need to thrive”.
Whoever is entrusted with the confidence of the British people at the general election will have a huge amount of work to do, and some of it will have to be done as a matter of urgency. Let us have the election and get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for introducing the debate on the topic of more affordable homes. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and others, that I am not concerned about my personal career, on the basis that I am covering my noble friend Lady Penn’s six-month maternity leave while she spends some time with her newborn son, and therefore I will be leaving this position in September.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, to your Lordships’ House, and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. Croeso i’r Farwnes Smith o Llanfaes i Dŷ’r Arglwyddi a llongyfarchiadau ar eich araith—that was awful, and my mother will not forgive me for my pronunciation. I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate. They raised important points, which I hope to address in my response.
We all agree with the need for more affordable, high-quality homes in this country, to meet growing demand. The Government recognise the real pressures facing the housing market right now. As noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, have said, full-time workers in England expect to spend some eight times their annual earnings buying a home. Private sector rents have also increased by an average of 8% over the last 18 months. We also recognise that housing providers are facing a more challenging financial position. The Government continuously work with their delivery agencies to ensure that the affordable homes programme can still deliver effectively, in the light of this.
All this underscores the need for more homes of all tenures: homes to rent, homes to buy and homes to part-buy. Affordable homes that the average working family can comfortably live in is the ambition that underpins the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, launched in 2020. This represents a significant investment in affordable housing by the Government, and a clear commitment to deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes, for both sale and rent, throughout the country.
I will briefly outline how, and why, they have been broken down, and how the affordable homes programme in different tenures gives us the results. I start with homes for social rent. We recognise, as do many in this House, that these are the vital homes that we need to build to maintain thriving communities. As was so eloquently stated by numerous noble Lords, homes for social rent are a fundamental part of our housing stock—indeed, they are a lifeline for those who would struggle to secure and maintain a home at market rates. With that in mind, it was right for us to bring social rent homes into the scope of the affordable homes programme, which the Government did in 2018. Since then, we have affirmed our commitment to increase the supply of social rented homes in our levelling up White Paper, while improving the quality of housing across the board, in both the social and private rental sectors. We have also changed the parameters of the affordable homes programme to support this commitment, enabling further increases to the share of social rented homes that we are delivering.
Furthermore, the affordable homes programme is committed to funding a mix of tenures, enabling developers to deliver mixed communities. For that reason, we have kept a commitment to delivering homes for affordable rent as part of the programme. Whereas social rent is calculated using a formula, which takes into account regional earnings, homes for affordable rent is where rent is capped at 80% of the market rate—or lower, in London. This is an important way to support mixed communities with different tenures in new developments. It enables the programme to build more of the affordable homes that this country needs, because they need less subsidy than homes let at social rent.
Although social rent and affordable rent are clearly key elements of our approach, we also support aspiring homeowners to take their first step on the housing ladder. We understand what a difference that increased sense of security can make in all aspects of someone’s life and the lives of their family. That is why home ownership continues to be a fundamental part of the affordable homes programme offer. We will continue to deliver a significant number of homes for shared ownership.
This builds on our record to date of helping hard-working families to buy homes under shared ownership and build real capital in their properties. Between 2010 and 2023, we have delivered 156,800 new shared ownership homes, and our ambition is to build tens of thousands more as the affordable homes programme gathers pace. Since 2010, we have delivered over 696,000 new affordable homes, including over 482,000 affordable homes for rent, of which 172,600 are for social rent. To put this into perspective, the overall number of new homes during this period has been 2.5 million.
Local authorities are a critical part of delivering on the levelling up White Paper commitment to increase the supply of social housing over time. We are empowering them with flexibilities to make locally led decisions that deliver the best possible deal for their communities. In 2022-23, local authorities delivered over 8,900 affordable homes, representing 14% of the overall affordable housing delivery and the highest recorded number of local authority completions since 1991-92. To support continued delivery, in March last year we announced that local authorities will now have access to a new concessionary Public Works Loan Board interest rate for council house building from June this year.
Affordable housing is not delivered just through our affordable homes programme; around half of all delivery each year is through the planning system. As noble Lords will be aware, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act gives the Government powers to create the new infrastructure levy, which aims to capture even more land value uplift than the current system, continuing our drive to deliver more affordable housing.
I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that the Government are committed to the delivery of onsite affordable housing through the new levy, and to delivering more affordable housing than the current system of developer contributions. Under the existing system, negotiation of Section 106 planning obligations can cause significant delay and uncertainty, which often means less affordable housing for communities and uncertainty about when key infrastructure is going to be provided. The new levy will be mandatory, non-negotiable change. It will be clear to developers what they are expected to pay, and this change can be used to secure the delivery of onsite affordable housing as a non-negotiable in-kind contribution, which offers significant protection of affordable housing delivery over the present system.
The technical consultation to inform the design of the levy regulations closed at the end of the year, and we are currently analysing consultation responses. The Government are committed to consult again on the design of the infrastructure levy and I hope that, with the passing of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we will actually get this working to deliver more homes.
Finally, it is worth noting that councils continue to benefit not just from the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme that we have discussed today, but from the scrapping of the housing revenue account borrowing cap and greater flexibility in how they can use receipts from right-to-buy sales. I strongly urge councils to make full use of these measures, so we see more homes being built in the places where they are needed the most.
I turn to a number of questions—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I rise to make a brief intervention. The Minister is once again using the term “affordable homes”. Does she mean under the current six definitions of affordable homes—five of which are not affordable to anyone where I come from—and can she confirm that we will continue to have a permitted development regime that does not deliver any affordable homes at all?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will bring forward the question that I was about to answer in response to both the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who asked how I define “affordable”. The Government do not prescribe a definition of affordability. We recognise that the fundamental purpose of social housing is to provide affordable, safe and secure homes to those who cannot afford to rent or buy through the open market.
The purpose is reflected in the definition of affordable housing in the National Planning Policy Framework. This defines affordable housing as:
“Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market”.
So, to fall within the definition, homes must meet one or more other conditions: for example, affordable housing for rent must have rents that are set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for social or affordable rent, or, alternatively, have terms that are at least 20% below the market rate. It is a very broad definition because there are lots of tenures and lots of people providing this housing for the different audiences that require it.
With regard to planning reform, which noble Lords—including the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—have mentioned, the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 creates a simplified and strengthened plan-led system. The Act puts local people at the heart of development. This, we hope, will deliver more homes in a way that works for more communities.
Turning to questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I would like to reassure him that the social housing stock has grown by 151,000 since 2010, compared with the previous 15 years, when it fell by more than 420,000. So we have a big gap to make up and we are aware of that.
With regard to the affordable homes programme, this currently allows for 30% of the homes in the programme to be delivered through acquisitions. In practice, this tends to be the conversion of new homes that would otherwise have been sold on the open market to alternative affordable tenure types.
I turn now to temporary accommodation, which many noble Lords have mentioned. Indeed, when it comes to this, the Government are committed to reducing the need for temporary accommodation by preventing homelessness before it occurs. However, the current global context and the significant economic challenges we are facing are making our objectives on homelessness more challenging. We remain committed to preventing homelessness where possible and helping people to stay in their homes. Since 2022, we have provided £104 billion in cost of living support, an average of £3,700 per UK household, helping those most in need while acting in a fiscally responsible way. Where homelessness cannot be prevented, temporary accommodation is an important way to ensure that no family is without a roof over their heads.
However, we appreciate that it is not ideal and needs to be temporary. The £1.2 billion local authority housing fund enables councils in England to obtain better-quality temporary accommodation for those owed a homelessness duty, providing a lasting, affordable housing asset for the future. Indeed, between 2022 and 2025, we are providing local authorities with over £1.2 billion through the homelessness prevention grant.
With regards the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, there are mechanisms by which social housing tenants can receive housing support to help pay their rent. For these tenants, the costs of rent increases are met by their housing benefit or the housing element of their universal credit. Discretionary housing payments can be made to those entitled to housing support who face a shortfall in meeting their housing costs.
In respect of social rent levels, they typically are at between 50% and 60% of market rent, set in accordance with government rent policy for social rent, using a formula that accounts for relative county earnings. Indeed, 90% of the stock is done through social rent. As to affordable rents, they make up some 10% of the rental stock, and they are actually available at 80% of the market value—although the 80% number is much lower in parts of London. So we are talking about the difference between some £98 a week under social rent and £143 a week, although all the social benefits and the DWP benefits are not specific to the tenure.
Turning to the right to buy, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Davies, the Government believe that the housing market should work for everyone. We believe that those who want to rent their homes should be able to rent their homes, but those who wish to buy them should also be allowed to do so. We remain committed to the right to buy. This, since 1980, has helped more than 2 million social housing tenants become homeowners. We want to support councils to continue to deliver new and existing supply plans, and there is a requirement for replacement homes to be put in place as these are sold.
To help councils deliver more replacement homes in the current economic context, the Government have frozen the cap on acquisitions. Councils will be able to continue to deliver up to 50% of their right-to-buy replacement homes as acquisitions each year until 2025, with a focus on the purchase of new-build homes. From 1 April 2024, the Government are also increasing the percentage of the cost of replacement affordable homes that can be funded from the right-to-buy receipts, from 40% to 50%. We have listened to calls from councils to increase this cap, which some have said is making some build schemes unviable due to higher build costs.
With regard to the statistics that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked for, in 2022-23, local authorities sold 10,896 homes; they built 8,900. With all sources of affordable homes considered, there was a net increase of 14,680 affordable homes for rent.
Turning to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I agree that we need to do more. All measures to increase the rate of housebuilding for the provision of affordable homes should be considered, and we are including things such as the preferential borrowing rate for council house buildings from the Public Works Loan Board, which we have extended to June 2025. We have tried to allow them to retain, on a temporary measure, 100% of their right-to-buy receipts for 2022-23 and 2023-24, and indeed we have therefore allowed them to increase their capital buffer to provide more homes in the short term. Abolition of the housing revenue account borrowing cap, alongside the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, I hope means that local authorities and housing associations are supported to maximise the delivery of new homes, and we strongly urge them to mobilise and utilise these flexibilities in order to do it quickly.
I have another question, from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who asked me about the skills set with regards to construction. The Government recognise that there are challenges in the sector due to skill shortages in the housebuilding workforce and construction more broadly, which will become a greater challenge without active work to augment skills development. We are therefore committed to ensuring that the right skills and training are available for apprentices and others considering a career in the construction industry. For example, the Government are currently reviewing the work of the industry training boards and will be publishing the findings of these reviews along with any recommendations later this year. The Department for Education is improving training routes into construction, creating opportunities for workers to retrain, and the Government are increasing the funding for apprenticeships across the sectors, including construction, to £2.7 billion in the 2024-25 period.
On the report from Women’s Aid, which I believe came into all our inboxes earlier this week, it is critical that victims of domestic abuse get support, especially when they are in a housing need. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has given those who are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse priority need for accommodation secured by the local authority. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to make exceptions from any residency requirements.
I will also no doubt be having numerous discussions at this Dispatch Box over the coming weeks as we bring the private Renters (Reform) Bill to this House. I understand that we will have that on Tuesday next week, so I look forward to discussing the details with many of your Lordships then.
In closing, I thank your Lordships for prompting this important debate. It is clear that, although we may disagree regarding different approaches, all of us here agree on the underlying mission: to drive up affordable housing supply—truly affordable housing—for those who need it. This is a clear part of our mission to level up the country; indeed, it was a key tenet of our levelling up White Paper. The figures I have outlined today—more than 632,000 affordable homes built since 2010—show that we are making real progress towards it. However, I agree that more needs to be done.
Today we have also discussed the wide-ranging challenges that are facing us, and indeed the changes the Government continue to make to boost the social housing numbers over the medium to long term. Of course, through our Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the simplified infrastructure levy, these will take time, but I hope your Lordships will work with me and the rest of government to ensure that this issue cuts across party-political lines. It is an issue I am certainly committed to working on with noble Lords across this House, as I said earlier this week at the launch of the Church of England’s report. I am confident that, working together, we can get the right homes built in the right places for the people who need them most.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the speakers who have made such extraordinary contributions today; I can show that appreciation best by speaking extremely shortly. I have to say I am in awe of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I will leave her place name out this time because I believe she is scoring we English on our Welsh pronunciation, and I do not want to confirm my position at the bottom of the list. My street credibility with my Welsh friends will be enormously enhanced by the privilege of having the noble Baroness speak in this debate. One of them, who shares her hair colour but lives in Seattle, asked how a girl from the valleys can manage to go and work somewhere where it rains even more.
There has been an extraordinary diversity of knowledge and views expressed, but there is a common theme, which is the scale of the problem and the crisis. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe put it best when she posed a question to the Minister: whatever your briefing, can you give the House the confidence that the Government really appreciate the scale of the crisis and what needs to be done? With due respect to the Minister, and acknowledging the box that she must work in, the jury is out, at least as to whether that sense of urgency has really been recognised and communicated today. With that, I commend the Motion to the House.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) 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 22 April be approved.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see the Terrorgram collective proscribed. It may be helpful if I set out some background on the proscription power. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. For an organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism as set out in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties, criminalising membership and invitations of support for the organisation. It also supports other disruptive activity, including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and are therefore liable to be seized. The Home Secretary is supported in their decision-making advice from the cross-government Proscription Review Group. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given its wide-ranging impact, and it must be approved by both Houses. Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 contains the proscription offences in Sections 11 to 13. An organisation is proscribed if it is listed in Schedule 2 to that Act, or in most cases it operates under the same name as an organisation so listed.
The Government’s assessment is that the Terrorgram collective operates as an organisation in accordance with the guidance on the meaning of that term found in Section 121 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is based on the level of direction provided by its core leadership for the preparation of propaganda campaigns and the co-ordination between the network to disseminate the terrorist content to advance their neofascist accelerationist ideology. Article 2 of this order adds the Terrorgram collective to the list in Schedule 2 as a new entry.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that the Terrorgram collective is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. I am sure noble Lords will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. Nevertheless, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. The Terrorgram collective is a transnational online network of neofascist terrorists who produce and disseminate violent propaganda, with the aim of radicalising readers and encouraging individuals to commit acts of terrorism. Its aim is to bring about the collapse of western democracy and a race war through violent acts of terrorism.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will respond to the Minister’s statement by first thanking our intelligence, security and police services, as well as the Home Office staff, for their work in protecting us all. The Government’s first duty must always be to protect national security and the public. The people who undertake the challenging work of making sure we are always one step ahead of those who wish to cause us harm will always find support from these Benches.
We strongly support the introduction of this order. Terrorgram, named for its use of the online messaging platform Telegram, is an online collection of violent neofascists who distribute and promote material that incites right-wing extreme terrorist activity, both in the UK and across the world.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, the propaganda distributed by this network targets violence against ethnic minorities, religious groups, women and the LGBT community. Telegram groups promote a dangerous, violent, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic ideology. They glorify terrorist attacks, such as those committed by Anders Breivik, incite violent terrorist attacks and distribute bomb-making guides and other dangerous instructional material designed to aid would-be attackers. The dangerous consequences of their actions occurred only recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, when people were murdered in the LGBT nightclub in Bratislava by a terrorist who thanked Terrorgram in his manifesto. The Government’s welcome update of the definition of terrorism and this proscription order will provide a much-needed tool to prevent such attacks from being repeated here in the UK.
In the light of evidence connecting right-wing ideologies and violent terrorist acts to misogynistic views, can the Minister expand on what more the Government can do to counter this? Are there plans to update the Prevent programme to include incel ideology and violent misogyny as extremism? How is the Home Office working to prevent young men from being exposed to extreme misogynistic ideologies at a young age? What work is being done with other government departments to combat this threat? More broadly, what are the Government doing to assess and confront the online hate and extremism that form the basis of many terrorism threats?
I would welcome the Minister speaking more about the Government’s counterextremism strategy. Beyond the list of organisations defined as terrorist that the Government have said they will release, will a full, updated counterextremism strategy also be published? The previous strategy was published in 2015. The way Terrorgram uses online networks and platforms and intersects with other violent neo-Nazi organisations across the world demonstrates the growing complexity of the threats we face. As the terrorist threat evolves and becomes harder to predict and prevent, our understanding of the causes, nature and the consequences of the threats we face must also evolve.
The Government’s hate crime strategy has also not been updated since 2015. Terrorgram’s violent, bigoted ideology sits within a context of rising levels of hate crime across the UK. Hate crimes against transgender people hit record highs in England and Wales last year, and the Community Security Trust recorded a 147% increase in anti-Semitic incidents since 7 October, compared with 2022. It is important to have proscription orders in our arsenal of weapons against hate, extremism and terrorism, but they cannot be the only weapon. Can the Minister outline whether the Government plan to publish a new hate crime strategy?
This order is very welcome. Proscription is the right response to a dangerous and complex network that threatens our way of life, our public safety and our national security. This House and the country are united in protecting us all and we fully support the order.
I have one final question for the noble Lord. This clearly is a vile, disgusting group, so why have we waited so long? Why did we not bring this order much earlier? Some of the things they have been involved in, over quite a long period, are things we all abhor. With that, I support the order.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his support and the support of his party. We have covered some ground here and I will do my very best to answer the questions.
Why have we decided to proscribe the Terrogram collective now? I think I explained much of this in my opening remarks but to proscribe an organisation the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism and it is right that any decision to proscribe must be proportionate and necessary. As the House has heard, Terrorgram involves itself in preparing for terrorism through instruction material. It also promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications which contain violent narratives. As proscription is such a powerful counterterrorism tool, cases are scrutinised carefully to ensure that the decisions we take are lawful, consistent and proportionate. Proscription sends such a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out this activity wherever it is committed, but the evidence has to be very carefully scrutinised and that is, in essence, the reason why it has taken a while to get to this point.
The noble Lord also asked me about what is happening with the counter-extremism strategy and what has replaced the old one. The Government remain very much focused on disrupting the activities and influence of extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and stopping people from being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response to extremism under constant review, for the reasons the noble Lord laid out, in particular things such as the CREST research that he referred to. We have to make sure that it is best placed to tackle evolving threats. The Government’s current focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse, prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies that can lead from community division and radicalisation into terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate disruptive action will be considered.
The noble Lord made comments on incel and misogyny. We will not tolerate the spread of the harmful ideologies that can lead to these sorts of activities. There is a wide range of offences and powers that can be used to counter the threat from these areas and we are working to maximise their use. Of course, we know, as the noble Lord said, that the extremism landscape is constantly evolving and therefore that we have to continually seek to build and refresh our knowledge of the threat it poses. From 1 April 2023, the Government instructed all police forces in England and Wales to identify any violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, or sexual offences where the crime is deemed to be motivated by a hostility towards the victim’s sex. The implementation of sex-based hostility recording illustrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a better understanding of these abhorrent crimes, and that will obviously assist us in future policy development.
I conclude by again offering my thanks for the House’s consideration of and support for this very important measure. As I have outlined, it is proportionate and necessary in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism to protect the public and to defend our values. There is no place whatever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective, and we will not stand for it. We will never relent in showing up terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force that will always fail. With that, I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory order. I support the addition of the Terrorgram collective to follow the recent addition of Hizb ut-Tahrir to the proscribed organisation list under this order. This online terror collective, as has been said, supported acts of terrorism in Norway and Slovakia, and incitement in the Baltimore case of attacks on power substations. In common with its immediate predecessor on the list, it seeks to incite violence against Jewish people in the State of Israel, including by supporting Hamas’s attack of 7 October.
Such a proscription therefore has my support, but it prompts a wider question about the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the proscriptions are made. That Act defines terrorism in Section 1, which includes
“the use or threat of action where … the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and … the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious … or ideological cause”.
In subsection (2)(d), it refers to creating
“a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”
and so on.
Therefore, I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. While proscription outlaws an organisation, it does not address the blatant advocacy on our streets during the pro-Palestine marches—actions of intimidation against the Jewish community in Israel or at home. These, in the words of the 2000 Act, create
“a serious risk to the … safety of the public or a section of the public”,
and are
“designed to influence the government … or to intimidate”.
I urge my noble friend, in the same spirit of this addition to the proscribed list, to reconsider the arrangements for these marches in this context. Surely it is time for His Majesty’s Government to go beyond the standard reply that policing of marches is an operational matter for the police. Does the intimidation and threat to a section of our people—the Jewish minority here and overseas—not require a more direct address by the law, given that policing to date has proved inadequate, in addition to this proscription, which I welcome?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the sentiments behind my noble friend’s questions. I am not sure they are entirely appropriate for this format, but I will just rehash the powers conferred on the Government under the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Secretary does not have the direct power to prohibit a public procession; the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has the power to prohibit public processions under Section 13 of the Act. Before this power can be used, they must reasonably believe that the power to impose conditions under Section 12 of the Act would not be sufficient to prevent serious public disorder, and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I am afraid that those are questions that would be better addressed to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.