House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
We have again seen calamitous events in Scotland this week. However, I wish Humza Yousaf very well for the future. I always found him to be a very decent man to work with, and there is no doubt that he was dealt a rotten hand.
Although I do not want to dwell unduly on the private grief of SNP Members, I very much hope that whoever becomes First Minister will work with us on the issues that really matter to people in Scotland, such as public services and our economy, and will not continue to obsess with independence.
This Government are taking long-term decisions to cut taxes for working people and to grow the economy. The spring Budget represented a significant milestone in the UK Government’s levelling-up mission, with investment into Scotland bursting through the £3 billion mark. In addition, the Scottish Government will benefit from a £295 million funding uplift through the Barnett formula for 2024-25.
Ms Qaisar
The reality is that the Chancellor’s regressive spring Budget left the people of Scotland behind. In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government took the bold step of implementing a progressive tax scheme.
The Westminster establishment argued that Scotland’s income tax rates would somehow cause people to leave the country. Last week, however, it was revealed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that the opposite is true, with many more taxpayers moving to Scotland than leaving. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming this brilliant news and congratulating the Scottish Government on standing up for the people of Scotland?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady’s point would be relevant if that report were not from 2018-19, long before we entered into six tax bands in Scotland, versus three in the rest of the UK. I absolutely do not agree with her.
Chris Stephens
The Secretary of State mentioned levelling up, which is curious. We know that the Budget cut public services across the board and cut Scotland’s capital funding, yet levelling up seems to benefit places such as the financial district of Canary Wharf, which has benefited by £16,000 per head. Is he suggesting that Scotland, but not other parts of the UK, should accept austerity from this Government?
Mr Jack
That is a ridiculous remark. The levelling-up agenda in Scotland has been fantastically successful, and there has been absolutely no austerity. The Scottish Government have received a record block grant of £41 billion, the highest since devolution began. I am surprised that the SNP wants to talk about the Budget, because the Scottish Government’s Budget put taxes up and cut vital public services, so Scots are actually paying more and getting less.
Gavin Newlands
What utter nonsense. The hypocrisy of this Tory party, which is busy gaslighting the Scottish public by complaining about cuts to capital spending while the Tory Government are busy cutting 16%, or £822 million, from the Scottish Government’s capital block grant allocation, is quite astonishing. With Westminster holding Scotland back yet again, can the Secretary of State tell us, as Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, whether he argued against these cuts? Will he argue for the Scottish Parliament to have the ability to raise more capital borrowing to mitigate these savage Westminster cuts and to help drive Scotland forward?
Mr Jack
In the fiscal framework settlement, we made it very clear and agreed with the Scottish Government that resource funding could be reallocated, if they so wished, from the record block grant into capital funding. That is what has happened. Additionally, they have the ability to borrow £450 million, if required.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I also begin by passing on my best wishes to Humza Yousaf and his family. I always found him very personable in my dealings with him, although I disagree with virtually everything he has said or done as First Minister of Scotland, particularly putting up taxes and delivering poorer public services.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in my constituency are struggling to recruit employees from other parts of the United Kingdom because of the higher tax rates in Scotland, which are damaging our local economy?
Mr Jack
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I am well aware, as are businesses in Dumfries and Galloway, that having six tax bands in Scotland but three in the rest of the UK is not the way to incentivise people to go to work in Scotland or even to relocate their businesses there.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On this International Workers’ Day, May Day, Scottish Television journalists are striking for fair pay. I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in insisting that STV gets back around the table with its journalists to thrash out an acceptable deal. Given all the news that is happening this week, we need them back on the television.
I too pay tribute to the outgoing First Minister, Humza Yousaf. We may not have agreed on everything, but his historic appointment marked a pivotal moment in our multicultural public life in Scotland, and I wish him and his family well for the future.
The spring Budget was just another moment that exposed the damage done by the chaos of the former Prime Minister’s kamikaze Budget. The Secretary of State has been spinning that it brings taxes down, but is it not the case that the tax burden in Scotland and across the rest of the UK continues to rise? The Prime Minister now wants to mirror his irresponsible predecessor with an unfunded £46 billion policy to get rid of national insurance altogether. The Secretary of State sits around the Cabinet table, so which one of these have they discussed to pay for this: pensioners, the NHS or income tax rises?
Mr Jack
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the tax burden in Scotland is too high and rising, and people are paying more and getting less. Fortunately, the UK Government have taken the decision to partially offset that, not through income tax cuts but through national insurance cuts, with 4p coming off NI. To pick up on his last point, he was referring to an aspiration that this Government have. We have already reduced NI by 4p, a third, and we aspire to remove it altogether, because it is a tax on jobs.
Ian Murray
This is a £46 billion, unfunded aspiration, and the Secretary of State and the Government will not tell us where they will get the money from. Scotland is trapped between two chaotic and failing Governments; we have had three Prime Ministers, and we will have had three First Ministers, in as many years. All the while, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) thinks he is already the First Minister and calling the shots, although he has been shooting himself firmly in the foot. What is abundantly clear to the people of Scotland is that neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government are even interested in delivering the change that Scotland needs. With neither Government wanting to let the people decide, will the Secretary of State tell the House who he thinks is most scared of a general election, the Tories or the Scottish National party?
Mr Jack
We absolutely do not fear an election, whether for Holyrood or a general election. As I watch the nationalists implode again, I say, “Bring it on.” I hear them say the same from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] Bring it on! Chaps and chapesses over there, start polishing up your CVs.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I, too, on behalf of the SNP group, put on record our sincere thanks to Humza Yousaf for his public service over the months and years. I wish him, Nadia and the rest of his family all the best in their future.
Let me also observe that fewer people in Scotland will see our proceedings today as Scottish Television is currently blacked out because of a strike by TV journalists. I implore the management of STV to get back around the table with the National Union of Journalists, improve its pay offer and try to settle this dispute.
The Budget that was approved a few months ago also contains forward planning assumptions on income and expenditure over the next three to five years. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those assumptions on the Scottish public finances?
Mr Jack
As I have said before, we have a record block grant. It is running over a three-year period and it averages out at £41.6 billion, and then there are Barnett consequentials added to that. This year, that figure is £295 million, based on the spring Budget’s figures.
Tommy Sheppard
That sounds like no assessment at all has been made. The truth is that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, these forward planning assumptions involve public service cuts of up to £20 billion. That can only imply savage cuts to the Scottish block grant in the next two to three years. Sadly, these planning assumptions and the framework are endorsed by the Labour party. So if people vote either Conservative or Labour at the coming election, are they not consenting to massive cuts in public services in Scotland?
Mr Jack
Of course I do not agree with those figures. Public services in Scotland are in a desperate state. In their recent Budget, the Scottish Government froze council tax, thereby putting more pressure on local authorities to deliver those public services.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Scotland Office Ministers have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to defence. Defence spending contributes significantly to delivering thousands of high-skilled jobs and investment in Scotland. I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister that we will increase our defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in response to rising global threats.
Bob Blackman
Clearly it is good news for the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular, that 2.5% of GDP will be spent on defence. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the number of jobs that will be protected and potentially be created in Scotland as a result of this decision?
Mr Jack
The short answer is that the increased investment announced by the Prime Minister will be focused on firing up the UK industrial base. The whole United Kingdom will benefit from that, and it will ensure that our armed benefit from the latest technology. Both of those things will bring economic benefits and support jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. At this time of heightened global tension and an illegal war in Ukraine, sparked by the Russians, I am confident that Scotland will play a growing role, as the UK Government ramp up their spending.
Rob Butler
Thanks to the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been lucky enough to meet some of the amazing military personnel and civilians working at His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increase in defence spending announced last week by the Prime Minister will bring benefits across the whole country, whether at RAF bases in my own constituency or at the many military establishments in Scotland, and that it is another clear demonstration that it is the Conservatives who can be trusted to defend and protect our entire United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is the Conservatives who are trusted to defend the whole of the United Kingdom. The SNP has consistently proposed abandoning our nuclear deterrent, including in its most recent independence paper. The irony is that the SNP wants to be part of the NATO alliance, but not part of a nuclear NATO alliance.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
A vital part of defence spending is ensuring that military personnel live in safe and suitable accommodation. At last week’s debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) ensured concessions from the Government on the standards of military accommodation. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that in Scotland?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As the father of a serving soldier, I completely agree with her. I hear from members of the military that they are disappointed with the standard of accommodation. I have raised the issue on a UK-wide basis and discussed it with the Defence Secretary. He said the programme of improvements, which started before last winter, amounts to £400 million of spending.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Further to the Secretary of State’s comments about nuclear bases, I hope he is aware of the alarming rise in more serious nuclear safety incidents at Scotland’s Trident nuclear bases on the Clyde. My questions have revealed 179 incidents were logged in 2023 and 2024, including six with a risk of radiation leakage to the environment, the first category A incidents in 15 years. Has he concerns if there was a radioactive leak beyond safe levels in many of these incidents? What reports will his Government produce to reassure crew and those living nearby that the nuclear infrastructure is not, as one former Downing Street adviser described it, “dangerously rotting”?
Mr Jack
I have visited Faslane, our base on the Clyde. It is an absolutely fantastic facility. We do not comment on matters relating to Faslane. If the hon. Lady has any more specific questions, she should ask them at Defence questions, but regarding our nuclear deterrent and our nuclear facility, we do not comment on things that happen there.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
I am in touch with Home Office Ministers regularly to discuss immigration matters that affect Scotland. This Government have youth mobility schemes agreed with 13 countries and we remain open to new arrangements with our international partners, including individual EU member states.
Alyn Smith
I have to say that I am bemused by that answer. I will never shake in my view that Brexit was an act of gross harm against the next generation, particularly in Scotland, where we rejected it. But we are where we are, and the EU has offered the UK a comprehensive youth mobility scheme up to the age of 30 for four years. That strikes me as a fantastic deal. Scotland wants to do it, so why is the Minister so keen to hold Scotland back? But my actual question is: is he as delighted as I think he must be that the Labour party completely agrees with him?
John Lamont
The hon. Member and the SNP continue to obsess about Brexit and the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. This Government are absolutely committed to offering young people opportunities to travel around the world during their education, as demonstrated through our association with the Horizon scheme and through the Government’s Turing scheme.
Anne McLaughlin
The youth mobility scheme would allow young people in my constituency of Glasgow North East and across Scotland to participate in youth exchanges, work, study and travel across Europe. The Minister got to do that. Is his message to my constituents that this freedom was for the likes of him, but not for the likes of them?
John Lamont
The UK Government currently operate 13 successful bilateral youth mobility schemes with international parties. The countries with which we already have arrangements include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, San Marino, South Korea, Taiwan and Uruguay. [Interruption.] SNP Members may scoff at these countries, but these countries are offering unique opportunities for Scots to travel internationally and to learn, as many of us did as well.
Richard Thomson
Anyone in Scotland watching this will be incredibly disappointed with the responses that we have had from the Minister to date. In March 2021, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said on BBC Scotland that young people were not reaping the benefits of Brexit. I do not often agree with my constituency neighbour in the south, but he was absolutely right then and he is still absolutely right now, is he not?
John Lamont
The biggest obstacle to opportunities for young people in Scotland is the SNP Government. By restricting the number of places for Scottish students at Scottish universities so heavily, the Scottish Government seem intent on driving young people out of our country.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Having been involved in running a number of our youth mobility schemes, I am fairly familiar with the concepts that they involve, such as capped numbers; reciprocity—the idea that we do not have a large flow one way without it happening the other way; limited terms; no access to the welfare system; and the fact that people cannot take dependants with them given their temporary status. Will the Minister assure me that we will maintain the position that we had under the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, that we will do this where it is in the UK’s economic interest and where we know that the main drivers of issues such as immigration abuse do not exist? That is why we have the schemes that we do with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and why we should maintain that open approach.
John Lamont
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and his continued interest in it. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we have no plans to agree an EU-wide youth mobility scheme for the reason that he has highlighted, but we are open to negotiating with individual member states individual arrangements that suit the United Kingdom and Scotland.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
This Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting households across the United Kingdom and in Scotland with the cost of living, with a £108 billion package of support—one of the largest in Europe. Inflation is now at 3.2%, which is less than half its recent peak, and is expected to fall to its 2% target one year earlier than expected.
Liz Twist
According to the Scottish Parliament’s own research as well as the Fraser of Allander Institute, the Scottish Government’s child poverty targets for 2023-24 are not set to be met. Given the dereliction of their net zero targets and the widening attainment gap, does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government have given up on governing and given up on the future of Scottish children?
John Lamont
I agree with the hon. Member: the SNP gave up governing in Scotland a long time ago thanks to its continued obsession with independence and referendums. The UK Government remain committed to supporting households across Scotland, demonstrated through our 6.7% increase in working age benefits, our maintaining the triple lock for 12 million pensioners and our cut to national insurance.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I wish Humza Yousaf well for the future, but after his year in office, nobody in Scotland is better off, and that is coupled with our having a Prime Minister who is clinging on to power. Child poverty is up. Life expectancy is falling. NHS waiting lists are up. Drug deaths are up. Homelessness is up. Economic growth has flatlined. Is it not the inescapable truth that Scots have been failed by two Governments for far too long? Does the Minister agree that what Scotland needs now is to be rid of both these distracted, incompetent and hopelessly out-of-touch Governments?
John Lamont
I certainly agree that the SNP Government have not been focused on the day job. They have been neglecting Scotland’s schools, NHS and transport network. They have not been getting on with the day job, but the harsh reality is that whoever is elected to replace Humza Yousaf as First Minister will still have the same obsession with independence and referendums.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The Government’s assessment is that our internal market is the essential basis on which businesses are able to trade freely across the United Kingdom, minimising red tape and maximising opportunities. In Scotland, 60% of outgoing trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom—more than with the rest of the world combined.
John Stevenson
The internal market is beneficial for all parts of the United Kingdom. It is, however, more important to those areas where there is a border. Does the Minister therefore agree that the internal market should be very helpful in maintaining and developing economic activity in the borderlands area, and will he consider a second borderlands growth deal, which would certainly help the area on both sides of the border?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the UK’s internal market is essential to promoting economic activity, ensuring that businesses in the borders—in my constituency, in Carlisle and beyond—benefit from frictionless trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. The borderlands growth deal, which includes a £265 million investment from the UK Government, was signed in July 2021, and is developing a range of projects to further boost economic growth.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
When the BBC has the headline on its webpage, “Why has Ireland got so much surplus cash?” is it not clear that the reality is that independent Ireland is more successful in the European and world markets than Scotland, trapped in the UK? Ireland has a surplus of £8.6 billion to spend on its society. The UK has a deficit and cuts, which are hurting people. Will the Minister remind us of the size of the UK deficit?
John Lamont
I am very clear that Scotland is better served by being at the heart of a strong United Kingdom. The spending figures of the Scottish Government are very clear, in terms of their dependency on Scotland being part of the UK to support vital public services like the NHS, schools and the transport network.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Water quality policy is devolved in Scotland. The Scottish Government are responsible for biodiversity in rivers and streams in Scotland, not the United Kingdom Government. It is for the Scottish Government to take action in this vital area.
Mr Sheerman
Is it not the truth that Scottish waters, streams and rivers are purer and cleaner because the Scottish people rejected the privatisation of water and, led by Scottish Labour, made sure that we had Scottish water in the public realm and delivered clean water for everyone?
John Lamont
The hon. Member is absolutely wrong. According to a recent report, untreated sewage has been released into Scottish waters and seas more than 58,000 times over the past five years, but only 4% of sewage overflows in Scotland are required to be monitored, unlike in England and Wales, where nearly 100% are monitored, thanks to the efforts of this Government. Unlike this Government, the Scottish Government and Scottish Water are failing to take tough action to monitor sewage overflows and protect our very important waterways.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
This Government are committed to protecting free speech. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, working with Police Scotland, to ensure that the hate crime legislation is implemented and enforced in a way that protects freedom of speech and has the confidence of people in Scotland.
Jerome Mayhew
The Scottish Government’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 came into force this month and is already having a chilling impact on free speech. What lessons can the UK Government learn from the introduction of this poor legislation in Scotland?
Mr Jack
Yes, and Police Scotland already has stretched resources—not least because it has been checking up on the SNP finances for the last three years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we do have concerns that the legislation could have a potential chilling effect on free speech, but it is for the Scottish Government to speak to their own devolved laws. For my part, I believe it is an awful piece of legislation; it lacks clarity on what constitutes an offence, and, importantly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the UK Government will not enact similar legislation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Never before has such rubbish been uttered about a piece of legislation as has been uttered about the Hate Crime Act. In one week, the Tories have tried to repeal it—which, given that it mainly consolidates existing legislation, will leave us unprotected against islamophobia, racism and homophobia. Will the Secretary of State now issue one of his famous colonial decrees and tell the Scottish Tories to back off?
Mr Jack
First of all, those laws already existed—that is the important thing. Secondly, I was right about police resources. There were 8,000 hate crime reports in the first week, more than in any of the seven preceding years. It is a ridiculous, unnecessary piece of legislation.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the thoughts of the whole House are with the people of Hainault in east London following yesterday’s appalling attacks. Such violence has no place on our streets. It is absolutely heartbreaking that a teenage boy has died, and I cannot imagine what his family are going through. We send them our heartfelt condolences and offer our very best wishes to all those injured. I reiterate my thanks to the police and other emergency first responders for embodying the highest standards of public service under such awful circumstances. I know our thoughts are also with those injured this morning in an attack at a school in Sheffield.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kirsten Oswald
We know that more than one in five teenagers are vaping, with some experts describing it as an epidemic. Yesterday, new research suggested that teenagers who vape could be at risk of exposure to toxic metals, potentially harming brain or organ development. I agree with the Prime Minister in his wish to reduce the harms caused by smoking and vaping through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Does he agree that permitting football strips to be sponsored by vaping companies sends entirely the wrong message to young people, and that it is time to ban vape companies from advertising on sports strips?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Obviously, decisions about kit sponsorship will rest with individual teams, but I agree with her that it is important that we do everything we can to tackle the scourge of teenage vaping. That is why I am glad that she supports our Bill, which will not only clamp down on marketing and availability of flavours, targeting point-of-sale purchases, but improve funding for trading standards to clamp down on those selling vapes illegally to children.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s husband and all our veterans for their service to our country. In the most uncertain times since the cold war, it is right that we build our security, protecting our values, our interests and indeed our nation. That is why this Government have taken the step to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, making us the biggest spender in Europe under NATO. When the Labour leader stands up, I hope he stops dithering, does the right thing and confirms that he will back our plan to increase defence spending.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in his words about yesterday’s awful events in Hainault. I am sure that the whole House will want to commend the first responders and send our deepest condolences to the family of the 14-year-old boy who was murdered. I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the attack in the school in Sheffield as well.
I know that everyone in the House will be delighted to see His Majesty the King returning to his public duties and looking so well. We all wish him and the Princess of Wales the best in their continued recovery.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) to his place on the Labour Benches. After nearly two decades as a Tory politician and an NHS doctor, he has concluded that if you care about the future of our country and our NHS, it is time for change; it is time for this changed Labour party. As of today, he is our newest Labour MP, but I am sure he will not mind my saying that I hope he loses that title on Friday. When a lifelong Tory and doctor says that “the only cure” for the NHS is a Labour Government, is it not time that the Prime Minister admits that he has utterly failed?
The Prime Minister
I am glad to actually see the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) in the House, because he recently pointed out that residents under his local Labour council are
“charged much more in council tax but in return receive…lower quality”
services. He has been wrong about some things recently, but on that point he is absolutely right, and this week, people everywhere should vote Conservative.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister comes out with all that nonsense, but he locks himself away in his Downing Street bunker, moaning that people are not grateful enough to him. The reality is that Tory MPs are following Tory voters in concluding that only the Labour party can deliver the change that the country needs. I say to those Tory voters that if they believe in a better Britain, they are safe with this changed Labour party, and it is for them. In the two weeks since we last met at the Dispatch Box, has the Prime Minister managed to find the money for his completely unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance?
The Prime Minister
We addressed that a few weeks ago, and I am happy to address it again. I know that economics is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s strong point, but he would do well to listen to his shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who just this morning said, “No, that’s not how it works.” Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has also said that the link between national insurance and public services funding is “illusory”—just like Labour’s economic plans. However, it is crystal clear that there is one party that will deliver tax cuts for working Britain, and it is the Conservative party. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Whoever is banging the furniture will have to pay for it if they damage it. Can we have less of that? We are not in the sixth form now.
Keir Starmer
That was a long, rambling non-answer to the question, which was: has the Prime Minister found the money to fund his £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance? Whenever he is asked about the date of the election, or about people’s pensions, he acts as if answering straightforward questions is somehow beneath him, but pensioners and those who are planning their retirement deserve better than his contempt for their questions. If £46 billion were cut from its funding, the value of the state pension would almost halve, so I do not apologise for asking him again—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gullis, you have the next question, which you are not going to reach at this rate, and you have the ten-minute rule Bill. I would be quiet for a while if I were you.
Keir Starmer
I do not apologise for asking on pensioners’ behalf again whether the Prime Minister will finally rule out cutting their state pension to fulfil the enormous black hole in his spending plans.
The Prime Minister
Of course we can rule that out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop scaremongering, because it is thanks to the triple lock that we have increased pensions by £3,700 since 2010, and they will rise in each and every year of the next Parliament. It is Labour who always hit pensioners hard. It is his mentors, Blair and Brown, who broke their promises, raised pension taxes by £118 billion, and delivered an insulting 75p rise in the state pension. As one former Labour adviser just said, Brown “destroyed our pensions system”. They did it before, they will do it again. Labour always betrays our pensioners.
Keir Starmer
It is clear that the Prime Minister cannot answer the question of where he is going to find this £46 billion. [Interruption.] No, he has said where it is not coming from; he has not said where it is coming from. Luckily for him, one of his peers, Lord Frost—yes, him again—does know. He says that to solve the problem of the Tories’ spending plans, the state pension age should be raised to 75. Understandably, that will cause some alarm, so will the Prime Minister rule out forcing people to delay their retirement by years and years in order to fulfil his £46 billion black hole?
The Prime Minister
I have answered this multiple times for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am happy to say it again: the Conservative party is the party that has delivered and protected the triple lock. Ultimately, he is not worried about any of this, because as we all remember, he has his very own personal pension plan. Indeed, it comes with its very own special law: it was called the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations. It is literally one law for him and another one for everyone else.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister wants to abolish national insurance, which will cost £46 billion, and he will not tell us where the money is coming from. We are no closer to an answer. I am going to persevere. Last year, the Prime Minister was apparently drawing up plans to remove the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. His Paymaster General went a step further, saying:
“these are the sorts of things I think we need to look at”.
Will the Prime Minister now rule out taking pensioners’ winter fuel payments off them to help fund his £46 billion black hole?
The Prime Minister
It was this Government who, just this winter, provided double the winter fuel payment to support pensioners. What is crystal clear is that we believe that the double taxation on work is unfair. We believe that hard work should be rewarded, which is why this week, we are cutting taxes by £900 for everyone in work. In contrast, it is Labour’s newest tax adviser who thinks that pensioners should be taxed more—those are his words. This adviser calls them “codgers”. He thinks that supporting them is a “disgrace”, and he believes that their free TV licences are “ridiculous”. It is Labour who hit pensioners with tax after tax, and they would do it all over again.
Keir Starmer
Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister’s MPs are following Tory voters in queuing up to dump his party? Even the Mayors who he is apparently pinning his political survival on do not want to be seen anywhere near him, because until he starts setting out how he is paying for his fantasy economics, he has a completely unfunded £46 billion promise that puts people’s retirement at risk. How does it feel to be one day out from elections with the message, “Vote Tory, risk your pension”?
The Prime Minister
Tomorrow, voters will have a choice. It will be a choice between Mayors like Andy Street and Ben Houchen, who are delivering, or Mayors like Sadiq Khan, who simply virtue-signal. It is higher taxes, more crime and the ultra low emission zone with Labour, or lower taxes and better services with the Conservatives—that is the choice. From the West Midlands to Teesside to London, there is only one choice: vote Conservative.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our plan is working. Legal migration, the latest figures show, is down by 24% and student dependants down by 80%. We all know Labour’s big idea: it is to scrap the Rwanda plan even when it is operational. However, as one senior Labour adviser said to Andrew Marr just yesterday:
“'We can’t just come in, tear it up, and have nothing to put in its place”.
I am sorry to break it to Labour Members, but that is exactly their policy. While we are getting on and stopping the boats, all Labour would do is stop the planes.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On Monday, the Armed Forces Minister could neither confirm nor deny that UK troops may soon be deployed on the ground in the middle east. The public watching will be hoping that Members of this House do not have a short memory when it comes to the potential deployment and involvement of our military in the middle east. Can I ask the Prime Minister to provide some much-needed clarity: is he giving active consideration to the deployment of UK forces in the middle east—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, you would not expect me to get into any operational planning details, but what I will say is that we are absolutely committed to supporting international effort to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza, which I think the whole House would support, by land, sea and air. We have tripled our aid commitment, and right now—together with the US, Cyprus and other partners—we are setting up a new temporary pier off the coast of Gaza to get aid in as securely and quickly as possible.
Stephen Flynn
Let us all be in no doubt: aid is required in Gaza, and it is required because, when people are not being bombed, they are starving to death. The solution to that is a ceasefire and the opening of safe ground aid routes, not the involvement on the ground of UK military personnel. These are dramatic and potentially dangerous developments, so will the Prime Minister confirm to the House today that, before he makes a decision, all Members will be afforded a vote?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to apologise for our armed forces playing a leading role in supporting international effort to get more aid in. Indeed, we are sending Royal Navy support ship RFA Cardigan Bay to the region to support that effort. The right hon. Gentleman talks about this conflict; the fastest way to end it is to ensure that we have a hostage deal that gets hostages out and aid in, and for there to be a sustainable pause in the fighting. It seems clear that there now is a workable offer on the table, so I hope he joins me in encouraging all parties, including Hamas, to accept that deal so we can move towards a sustainable solution.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am thankful for my hon. Friend highlighting the work that the Government are doing, whether that is increasing our defence spending to keep us safe, securing our borders with our Rwanda Act, cutting taxes by £900 or raising the state pension by £900. I am also pleased that, locally in Herefordshire, we are filling in potholes, helping to save the River Wye and improving local health services. It is crystal clear that it is the Conservative Government who have a plan and are delivering a brighter future for our country.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In February, the Foreign Secretary said that it would be difficult for a ground offensive on Rafah to avoid harming civilians and destroying homes, and just yesterday, the Deputy Foreign Secretary admitted that he was struggling to see how such an attack could be compliant with international humanitarian law. All the signs are that Netanyahu is about to defy the international community, and that an attack on the 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah is imminent. If that attack begins, will that be the moment when the Prime Minister finally finds the moral backbone to ban arms exports to Israel, and if not, how much more suffering has to happen before he acts to prevent further UK complicity in crimes against humanity?
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Lady did not acknowledge at all is that Israel suffered an appalling terrorist attack that killed hundreds of its citizens, and it does have the right to defend itself. Of course, as I have been crystal clear, we want to see humanitarian law respected and adhered to by all parties. Too many civilians have been killed, and we want to see Israel take greater care to avoid harming civilians. I have made these points repeatedly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, specifically about the impact of any military incursion into Rafah, and we continue to say to the Israelis at all levels that we want to see more aid going in, and bring about a hostage deal so that we can move towards a sustainable ceasefire.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right, and he joins me in welcoming the significant action that we have already taken to improve children’s health, whether that is reducing sugar in children’s food, or the £600 million we have invested to improve the quality of sport and physical activity in schools. The NHS has established a special group to ensure that the recovery of paediatric services keeps pace with that of adult elective care, and he will be pleased that the NHS long-term workforce plan, which we have fully backed, doubles the number of medical school places in England and increases specialty training places. That will increase the size of the pool from which community paediatricians can be drawn in the future.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I understand that an agreement has now been reached to ensure that radio teleswitch services will continue until June next year. Ofgem is also engaging with energy suppliers on their plans to support consumers through the transition. While households currently covered by the service should not be disadvantaged by the switch-off, energy suppliers are best placed to advise on tariffs for those who have been switched to a smart meter. However, I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a meeting with the relevant Minister, to ensure that his constituents are not left behind during the transition.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are levelling up across the United Kingdom and investing in places that need it the most, including, as my hon. Friend rightly highlights, our coastal communities. Almost £1 billion of levelling-up funding has been allocated to the east of England, including £75 million for coastal places. I know that he welcomes the town deal for Lowestoft in particular. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how we can further support his region with its role in our energy security, and, in particular, its coastal communities.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am not aware of the topic that the hon. Lady raises, but I am not going to make any apology for Conservatives pointing out the record of the SNP in Scotland or the Labour Government in Wales, because that is exactly what the democratic process is about. She might not like it when we highlight their record, but we will keep doing that so that we can deliver for people across the United Kingdom.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in thanking people up and down the country, including his constituents, for their fantastic work in supporting the Ukrainian community in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. We remain steadfast in support of Ukraine.
In total, since the war began, we have pledged over £12 billion of aid to Ukraine. Last week, we announced an additional half a billion pounds of funding, which will be used to deliver much-needed ammunition, air defence and engineering support and drones. More importantly—President Zelensky welcomed this—we are now able to say, because of the historic increase in our defence spending, that we will continue with this level of support for as long as it takes. It is crystal clear that, on the Government Benches, we can say that our support for Ukraine will never waver.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank and commend the hon. Lady for raising that case, and I pay tribute to Georgina for what she is doing. I often say that one of the most incredible things about doing this job is meeting people like Georgina, who have suffered tragedy in their lives but used that to campaign, inspire and bring about a better life for everyone else. She is a prime example of that, and she deserves nothing but our praise and admiration. I am so pleased that she has brought comfort to so many other people, too.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
On a recent visit, I was pleased to see for myself that my hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents. I was very pleased to see the thriving local technology and manufacturing industry, which will help us deliver on our ambitions to make the UK a science and technology superpower. He is right that we have a record 1 million fewer workless households, and unemployment near record lows. He is also right that we need to stick to the plan, because that is how we will deliver the long-term change that our country needs and a brighter future for families up and down the country, including in his constituency.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
The House will be aware that we have made commitments to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The hon. Lady makes a very important point that the Irish Government must uphold their promises, too. We cannot have cherry-picking of important international agreements. The Secretary of State is seeking urgent clarification that there will be no disruption or police checkpoints at or near the border. I can confirm that the United Kingdom has no legal obligation to accept returns of illegal migrants from Ireland. It is no surprise that our robust approach to illegal migration is providing a deterrent, but the answer is not to send police to villages in Donegal but to work with us in partnership to strengthen our external borders all around the common travel area that we share.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Gentleman is right that we will provide dignity to all those in retirement. That is why we introduced the triple lock and why this year the state pension is rising by £900. I am also proud of our record to bring 200,000 pensioners out of poverty. As I have said previously, the state pension will increase in each and every year of the next Parliament. He reminds us of the 75p increase—unlike Labour, pensioners in this country can trust the Conservatives.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
When it comes to ambulance waiting times in A&E, of course there is work to do, but the place where they are the worst in the country is in Labour-run Wales. Thanks to our plan, we have seen an improvement in A&E and ambulance times this winter compared with last winter. We have 800 more ambulances on the road, faster discharge out of our emergency care centres and 10,000 virtual ward beds. As I said, there is more to do, but the contrast with Labour-run Wales is crystal clear: it has the worst A&E performance anywhere in Great Britain.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
For six months, thousands of my constituents have lived with foul polluted air from the Withyhedge landfill site. The company is owned by someone with previous convictions for environmental crimes, who a few months ago gave £200,000 to help Vaughan Gething become First Minister of Wales, after another of his companies was loaned £400,000 from the Development Bank of Wales, overseen by the then Economy Minister Vaughan Gething. Does the Prime Minister agree that this serious matter demands an independent investigation? It is not some internal Labour party matter. Ultimately, that company needs to get out of my constituency and let people in Pembrokeshire have their quality of life back.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend brings up an incredibly important issue. I know that people in Wales are concerned about the relationship he mentions. I also agree with him on the need for transparency and an investigation regarding the Welsh Labour leader, because it is very clear that the situation is not at all transparent and answers are needed.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It has been revealed by The Observer newspaper that the Conservative candidate for the Mayor of London is a member of the six Facebook groups mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). They are full of Islamophobia, antisemitism and the most disgraceful incitement to damaging property. The worst bit, for those of us who were in the House when our Members of Parliament were taken, are the death threats to the current Mayor of London, Mr Khan. Will the Prime Minister close down those Facebook pages, which were begun by Conservative members of staff, and will he investigate the role of the current candidate and her membership of those disgraceful racist Facebook groups?
The Prime Minister
The election tomorrow will be fought on the substance of the issues that Londoners face. The Labour record is crystal clear: house building in London has collapsed; knife crime is rising; mayoral taxes are up 70%; and drivers have been hit with ULEZ charges. The Labour Mayor simply panders to unions and has decimated London’s night-time economy. That is his record and that is how he will be judged. People across London know that they will be safer with the Conservatives, with lower taxes and better services.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Today is Staffordshire Day, when we celebrate all the brilliant things about the county of Staffordshire. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our brilliant police, fire and crime commissioner, Ben Adams, and encourage the people of Staffordshire to vote for Ben tomorrow to ensure that Staffordshire remains one of the safest places to live, work and visit?
The Prime Minister
I wish everyone a happy Staffordshire Day. My right hon. Friend mentions the police and crime commissioner elections. It is right that she does, because under this Conservative Government and previous Conservative Governments we have cut crime by over 50% and delivered 20,000 more police officers. People with a Labour police and crime commissioner are more likely to be victims of burglary and are twice as likely to be victims of robbery. As I said, last year knife crime in London went up by 20%. The facts speak for themselves: vote Conservative for safer streets.
Immigration Update
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on immigration.
The Government are committed to reducing immigration—both legal and illegal—into the United Kingdom. Legal immigration has risen in recent years in part because we have extended the hand of friendship to people fleeing conflict and persecution in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. That was the right thing to do. But another factor has been the numbers of overseas students and workers and their dependants rising to unsustainable levels. The steps that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) announced last year to cut net migration will mean that around 300,000 people who would have been eligible to come to the UK will now not be.
We have restricted most students from bringing dependent family members, increased the salary that most skilled worker migrants need to earn in order to obtain a visa by nearly 50% to £38,700, stopped overseas care workers bringing dependent family members with them, raised the minimum income for family visas to ensure that people are supported financially, and scrapped the 20% going rate salary discount for shortage occupations and replaced the shortage occupation list with a new immigration salary discount list. The latest estimates from the Office for National Statistics show that net migration in the year to June 2023 was 672,000, 73,000 lower than it was six months earlier. The figures are provisional and we need to go further, but these are encouraging signs.
The latest statistics show that the numbers applying for skilled worker, health and care and study visas in the first three months of 2024 were down by 24% on the same period last year. We removed, from 1 January, the right of students starting courses—other than those on postgraduate research programmes and Government-funded scholarships—to bring dependants to the UK via the student visa route. The number of applications for student dependant visas has fallen by 80% since our changes came into force. From 11 March 2024, we have stopped overseas care workers bringing family dependants here, and have required social care firms in England to be registered with the Care Quality Commission to sponsor visas. In the year ending September 2023, an estimated 120,000 dependants came here via that route. In the first three months of 2024, the number of applications for health and care visas was down by 28%—and this is just the start; most of our changes have only just come into force.
Meanwhile, we remain committed to stopping the boats. Following Royal Assent for the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the ratification of our treaty with Rwanda, we can operationalise our plan to relocate illegal migrants to Rwanda. Rwanda is a safe country that has repeatedly shown its ability to offer asylum seekers a chance to build new and prosperous lives. It has a strong and successful track record of resettling people, hosting more than 135,000 refugees, and it stands ready to accept thousands more who want to rebuild their lives and who cannot stay in the UK. Once flights begin, we will have added another vital deterrent to crack down on the people-smuggling gangs who treat human beings as cargo. The first illegal migrants set to be removed to Rwanda have now been detained, following a series of nationwide operations this week. Operational teams within the Home Office have been working apace to detain, safely and swiftly, individuals who are in scope for relocation to Rwanda, with more activity due to be carried out in the coming weeks. This action is a key part of the plan to deliver flights to Rwanda in the next few weeks.
We have made solid progress in stopping the boats, although we need to finish the job. The number of small boat arrivals fell by more than a third in 2023, and our work with international partners prevented more than 26,000 crossings last year as well as helping to dismantle 82 organised crime groups since July 2020. Our new agreement with Albania has cut Albanian small boat arrivals by more than 90%, and we recently signed a groundbreaking deal with Frontex—the European Border and Coast Guard Agency—which marked another crucial step in the securing of our borders. An initial cohort in the thousands of suitable cases for removal to Rwanda has been identified and placed on immigration bail, with strict reporting conditions. We have a range of measures in place to ensure that we remain in contact with individuals, including both face-to-face and digital reporting, and Immigration Enforcement has a range of powers to trace and locate any individuals who abscond, as well as a dedicated team of tracing officers who work with the police, other Government agencies and commercial companies to help trace individuals and bring them back into contact. It would, of course, be inappropriate for me to comment further on operational activity.
Immigration has enriched this country beyond measure, but it needs to be sustainable and it needs to be fair. Legal immigration should be focused on helping those in genuine need, and on ensuring that our economy has the skills that it needs in order to flourish. It is simply not right for those who can afford to pay gangsters to jump ahead of those who would play by the rules, and whose need is greater. No one needs to flee to the UK from a safe country such as France. Both illegal immigration and unsustainable legal migration place intolerable burdens on communities, and over time they will undermine support for immigration in general, which would be a tragedy. That is why this Government have a plan, which we are putting into action. There is further to go, but we are seeing its positive impact already. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, but I have to say that this really is getting quite difficult to watch. Not for the first time, the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box desperately fishing for compliments, when it is his Government, his Home Secretary and his Prime Minister who are the cause of the catastrophic state of both the work-based migration and asylum systems. This is their bin fire—their chaos—yet they expect praise each time they half-heartedly attempt to throw a single teacup of water towards the flames.
Net migration has trebled since 2019 to a barely comprehensible 745,000. Under this Government, the number of people crossing in small boats has spiralled from a few hundred in 2018 to tens of thousands every year. It was toe-curlingly embarrassing to watch the Minister claim that he has made “solid progress” on stopping the boats, when this year the number of crossers is at the highest level on record—more than 7,000 between January and April.
It was excruciatingly painful to watch the Home Secretary boast on social media about removing people with no right to be here, when the removal of failed asylum seekers has collapsed by 44% under this Government since 2010, when the removal of foreign criminals has plummeted by 27%, and when he has completely lost track of the 3,500 asylum seekers he claims have been identified for deportation to Rwanda. It is also painful to hear Government figures bragging in the media that their Rwanda policy is somehow a success because a single person, who did not even cross the channel on a small boat, has chosen to fly to Rwanda voluntarily, with thousands of pounds of Government money stuffed into his pocket by the Home Secretary. This is not a policy; it is a headline-chasing gimmick, a fiasco and a farce.
Labour has been absolutely clear that we reject the £500 million Rwanda scheme, based on its unaffordability and unworkability. It will cover only 1% of small-boat asylum seekers, and the Government have no plan for the other 99%. We will repurpose that money to smash the criminal smuggler gangs with our new cross-border police unit and a security partnership with Europol. Crucially, our new returns and enforcement unit will ensure that more flights take off to other countries, which will remove foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and visa overstayers so that we can restore some control and integrity to our asylum system in a way that is firm, fair and well managed. We will also end the use of 250 asylum hotels and other inappropriate accommodation for asylum seekers, which is costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds every single day.
It is painful to hear the Minister bragging today about the reduction in the number of health and social care visas awarded as a way of bringing down net migration—first, because it is based on such a small data sample; secondly, because this is only one sector of the economy; and, thirdly, because the Minister seems to care not one iota what the reduction in workers will mean for our elderly parents. Where is the impact assessment, and where is the plan to recruit local talent?
Can the Minister explain why net migration has trebled since his party pledged during the 2019 general election to lower it? Will he admit that the huge surge in work-based migration over recent years is evidence of this Government’s total failure to deliver on domestic skills and training? Labour pushed the Government into scrapping the unfair 20% wage discount for jobs on the shortage occupation list, which allowed companies to undercut British workers by hiring overseas. Can he explain why it took so long for his party to steal our policy?
On asylum, Home Office sources have told The Times that only 400 to 700 detention spaces are reserved for migrants who are due for deportation to Rwanda. Can the Minister confirm that this equates to less than 1% of the current asylum backlog in the UK? The Prime Minister promised to detain everyone who has crossed the channel on a small boat—over 30,000 last year. Given that we have only 2,200 detention spaces, what will happen to the remaining 28,000?
The Government’s immigration and asylum policies have failed. We need to put the grown-ups back in charge so that we can fix this broken system and once again give our country an asylum and immigration system that it can be proud of.
Tom Pursglove
What a quite extraordinary response! The fact is that this is a Government who have a credible plan to bring net migration down by 300,000, and all those measures are now in flight. As I have been able to set out for the House, it is beginning to deliver the results we said it would deliver.
I will take no lectures from the shadow Front Bench about the issue of domestic employment. I was one of the Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions that was proud to bring forward the back to work plan and the comprehensive reforms of the welfare system that we are taking forward as a Government. We are also seeing enormous cross-Government join-up to support more domestic workers into those roles. That is the right thing to do: to support people in this country to take on those roles and fill those vacancies. And let us not forget the record of every single Labour Government: without fail, they leave unemployment higher at the time of leaving office than it was at the start. Under this Government, we have seen record low unemployment benefiting communities across the country.
We have begun the process of delivering the measures in relation to legal migration, and we are also delivering when it comes to illegal migration. We have a plan. We are now getting on and closing hotels—150 asylum hotels have been closed. That is a positive thing. It is the right thing to do to make sure that we accommodate people in appropriate accommodation, but get away from the model of providing hotel accommodation for people. What is Labour’s plan on that? We have seen massive gains when it comes to asylum decision making and productivity around those processes. What is Labour’s policy on that? We have seen crossings down by over a third last year compared with the year before. We have seen Albanian arrivals falling by 90%. Again, what is Labour’s offering to achieve likewise? There isn’t one.
We will continue to sustain the progress that we have made, and we know from everything that has been said in recent days that the Rwanda policy is beginning to have the desired effect: the deterrent is clear. When it comes to the hon. Gentleman’s meagre offering, I would just say that we have already doubled funding for the National Crime Agency for organised immigration crime work, and we already have approximately 5,000 officials working on these matters within migration and borders. That is all that Labour Members are offering; it virtually resembles a blank sheet of paper. The truth is that they offer no deterrent. They have nowhere to send people. They have no plan. They have no solutions. They try to bluff that they do, but they are kidding nobody. They are terrified that our plan is going to work. They are terrified that they will have to scrap it, and they are terrified that they have no alternative. Only we have a plan. It is delivering results and we will see it through.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Again, no hint of a plan for how we deal with failed asylum seekers from countries to which they cannot be returned without the Rwanda scheme. I am pleased with the progress that the Minister has made on reducing net migration, but I am worried about the figures that came out yesterday. Of the 5,700 migrants who have been identified for removal, only 2,145 can be located. This reflects the evidence from the second permanent secretary to the Home Affairs Committee earlier in the year, when some 17,000 failed asylum seekers who should have been removed could not be located. Where are these people, and what is the Department doing about tracking them down and making sure that they can be removed, as needs to happen as swiftly as possible?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot go into the granularity of the operational work that is ongoing to ensure that we can deliver on this policy, but I can say that an initial cohort of suitable cases of around 2,000 people has been identified for removal, and they have been placed on immigration bail with strict reporting conditions.
For those outside that group, there is still a wide range of tools to maintain contact with them. That includes, as I said earlier, face-to-face and digital reporting, and many individuals also reside within Home Office accommodation. The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) leads on this work and he is confident of the whereabouts, once the decision to detain is made, and this is just one of the cohorts of people who may be eligible for removal to Rwanda. The policy is clear and we are getting on and operationalising it. That includes detaining people for the purposes of relocation.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is hard to know where to start with this complete and utter drivel. The Minister comes here today proud of this tawdry, pathetic, self-defeating piece of fascist nonsense—[Interruption.] The Tories—[Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true and I will explain to them why. The Home Office has put out—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they do not like the truth. The Home Office has issued a promo video this morning of people being detained, and it absolutely turns my stomach. This is a Government who glorify their state-sponsored people trafficking plans as they cuff people and take them out of their beds to be sent to another country against their will. It is sickening.
These plans are damaging to our society, to our economy, to the people who need care and to the people who want to love, live and study here. Universities are up in arms about the cuts to student numbers. It makes absolutely no sense. The draft rules that the Government have issued on adults at risk in immigration detention were released this week, but instead of taking action on the serious recommendations of the Brook House inquiry, the Home Office is instead doubling down on its policy of indefinite detention. And Labour Members are going along with all of this. Shame on them.
Far from what the Minister said, small boat arrivals are up this year. Rwanda is no deterrent because none of their other policies has proved a deterrent. The thousands of people they want to send there have disappeared, never to be seen again, and who can really blame them, if they are going to be plucked from their beds and taken away by Ministers and sent to countries against their will? Indeed, who can blame them? The risk is that these people will end up being exploited because they have gone into hiding. They will be exploited, they will be trafficked and they will be vulnerable. Why is the Minister not acknowledging the impact that this policy will have on vulnerable people?
Finally, if it is indeed the case that the person the Government sent to Rwanda has not been granted refugee status in this country, why are they not being returned to their country of origin? Is it perhaps that that country is actually unsafe? If that is true, why were they not given refugee status here in the first place?
Tom Pursglove
It is a perfectly respectable position to want to protect our borders. It is right and proper to want to ensure that we have a fair and balanced system of legal migration that is sustainable. I make no apology whatsoever—and nor will this Government or any of the Ministers in the Home Office—for placing front and centre the determination to protect people’s lives. We have seen too many lives lost in the channel at the hands of evil criminal gangs with no regard whatsoever for human life who take people’s money, exploit them and send them out to sea in unseaworthy vessels. Candidly, beyond that, I am not going to edify the hon. Lady’s contribution with anything further.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is able to come to this House with the first encouraging signs of lower migration numbers, which will be welcomed widely outside this House—including, I suspect, in Scotland. Does he agree that the lesson we should draw from this is that taking practical, detailed measures to crack down on the exploitation of certain types of visa routes is the way to make progress on bringing immigration numbers down, rather than the windy rhetoric we heard from the Opposition spokesman?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is a distinguished former Home Office Minister who had responsibilities in the immigration space, and I would argue that a lot of the measures that we have announced, and that are now all in flight, build on the earlier efforts of colleagues such as him. He is absolutely right that the policies are balanced and measured and that they deliver on the legitimate aim of wanting to reduce inflows of legal migration into our country, to ensure fairness, to ensure that the model is sustainable and to ensure that people who come here are able to be properly supported. I think that that is something that the British people strongly support, and I entirely share his sentiments.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The National Audit Office estimates that it will cost £11,000 per person to fly people to Rwanda. Can the Minister tell the House which airline he will use to transport people to Rwanda? What is his estimate of the number of people who will be sent to Rwanda in the first three months of operating the policy?
Tom Pursglove
The Chairman of the Select Committee, for whom I have enormous respect and admiration, will understand why I am not going to get into operationally or commercially sensitive matters on the Floor of the House. We have consistently seen great efforts to thwart this policy, in a whole host of senses, over the course of weeks, months and years. We will not be thwarted. We have made commitments, and we will get on with delivering this policy. There is a plan and, as the Prime Minister has said, we will send a flight within the next 10 to 12 weeks. That is where our focus lies, and it would be entirely inappropriate to share the logistics on the Floor of the House.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
As mass migration has been shown to depress GDP per capita, and as it is clear that it is easier to control the much higher number of legal migrants, may I encourage the Government to return to their promise of having migration in the tens of thousands?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am not going to set out today what the Government’s future ambitions may be. What I am able to say is that we have a package of measures that is delivering a reduction of 300,000 in net migration, spanning various different routes. I think it is a very credible offer to meet the ambition of the British people to bring those numbers down, not least for the reason that my right hon. Friend touches on: legal migration to this country needs to be sustainable. When we consider, for example, that we saw 100,000 care workers come with 120,000 dependants, I do not think that any fair-minded person would, by any objective yardstick, think that that was a reasonable position. That is why we are bringing it to an end, and I am pleased that the measures we have introduced are delivering results.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Times reports this morning that the number of visas granted for care workers in March this year was 83% down on the figure for March 2023. Does the Minister expect that reduction to continue? If he does, who will do the work that those carers would have done, and what impact does he think it might have on the national health service?
Tom Pursglove
We have committed to monthly reporting on the net migration measures we have introduced to allow Parliament and others to take a view on our progress. There are extensive efforts across Government to employ more people from our domestic labour force. I wish Liberal Democrat Members were as enthusiastic as I am about the back to work plan and our work on recruitment and retention. We are taking forward those credible efforts to try to support more people in this country into these roles. We are also working intensively to improve the processes for rematching individuals who are already here on health and social care visas. These are the right steps to take, and I will not pre-empt what the figures might look like in the coming months. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to look at them in the same way as everybody else.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is interesting to hear the Minister’s comments and to see the impact of things that, I think it is safe to say, he and I would have wanted to do slightly earlier, such as abolishing the 20% discount on the SOL. Does he agree that the core problem is that, all too often, people see immigration as an alternative to policies that affect the domestic labour market, rather than as something that supports those policies? Sectors and businesses that will be very keen to have a meeting with him in his new role were not quite so keen to meet him when he was trying to promote the Disability Confident scheme as Minister for Disabled People. What are the Government’s plans to make sure that future migration policy clearly links up with our wider policy for the UK labour market, and to make sure that it is not open to lobbying to try to avoid it?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend speaks with real authority and experience on this issue. I recall our conversations in our previous ministerial roles, and he is absolutely right that immigration ought not to be the first port of call in meeting our skills needs and filling vacancies. That is why the Government have a co-ordinated plan, with our immigration policies, our back to work plan, our health and disability benefit reforms, and our reforms in a host of other areas. That should be our focus. I would argue that there is a strong moral case that investing in our domestic labour force to get people into vacancies is the right thing to do. Where there needs to be a practical approach to migration, we should look at it, but it most definitely should not be the first port of call.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the comments on legal migration, which is very important to many sectors in Northern Ireland.
On the important and perplexing issue of illegal migration, can the Minister say something about what the Irish Republic’s Government said this week about pushing back returnees to Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the Irish Justice Minister made up the fact that 80% of the problem stems from Northern Ireland? Will he say something about the Republic of Ireland’s courts claiming that the United Kingdom is an unsafe destination to return people to in the first instance? Will he please assure me that Northern Ireland will not become a dumping ground for the right-wing problems being faced across the EU?
Tom Pursglove
As the Prime Minister has rightly said, including at Prime Minister’s questions, we are not going to accept returns from the EU via Ireland when the EU does not accept returns to France, from where illegal migrants are coming to the United Kingdom. The UK Government’s position is clear. We have regular and ongoing work on the abuse of the common travel area, which is right and proper. We also stand by our obligations under the Good Friday agreement. I would argue that the Prime Minister has made our position very clear.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Chelmsford is a very welcoming community. We have welcomed Ukrainian refugees, the families of those brave Afghans who stood beside our soldiers, and the Hong Kong Chinese. We have amazing domestic abuse services, and we have welcomed women and their families from all over London and the south-east who are fleeing violent men. We have built thousands of new homes and, because the Labour Mayor of London has so spectacularly failed to build new homes, we have welcomed social housing tenants from all across London, but this cannot go on. We have 400 families who are unable to find a home in temporary accommodation. We have to control migration. I am delighted that the Minister is closing 100 hotels. Will he please close the Atlantic hotel and the Legg Street flats in Chelmsford? Chelmsford has welcomed so many, and we cannot home everyone.
Tom Pursglove
I am very mindful that my right hon. Friend’s community in Chelmsford has been incredibly generous. The UK Government have been delivering work in conjunction with communities to provide sanctuary for those fleeing the most dreadful conflicts around the world, including in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria, as well as those fleeing the situation in Hong Kong. She is also right to touch on the abuse of routes, which is precisely why we are introducing greater Care Quality Commission oversight and accreditation of the health and social care visa system.
I hear my right hon. Friend’s representations on accommodation, on which we have had conversations. Reducing inflow is critical to allowing us to get on with closing hotels across the country, and to getting the accommodation picture into a more manageable state. It is clear that only this Government have a credible plan to reduce the inflow of people coming here illegally via small boats across the channel. We will see that through to make sure that we can get on with closing more hotels.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As the policy is rolled out, it is seen to be the brutal and inhumane financial fiasco that it is. Asylum seekers were detained as they turned up for their normal monthly reporting yesterday, causing immense distress. A number of them will inevitably be sent to the detention centres in my constituency. We have experience of what happens when people are distressed in this way. We have seen suicides, self-harm and mental breakdowns. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that the charities that support asylum seekers in detention, including Care4Calais, will have direct access to these detained individuals, and that these individuals will have access to legal advice?
Tom Pursglove
There are, of course, established processes whereby people can access the support that is appropriate in the circumstances. I have a principled disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman on this point about detention, and I recognise that those in the Scottish National party do not support detention either for the purposes of removal. However, where people are here who have no right to be here, I think it is appropriate that they are detained for the purposes of removal. That is done entirely properly, in accordance with the law, with the proper safeguards around it. As ever, that will continue to be the case during the ongoing work as part of the Rwanda relocations.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the statement and, in particular, the news that in some categories at least immigration is finally beginning to fall. On asylum specifically, the Irish Foreign Minister and former Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, complained bitterly just a few days ago that large numbers of asylum seekers were moving from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. Sky News reported yesterday that the Irish Government are seriously contemplating moving police officers to the border to interdict that flow. In effect, that would create a hard border on the island of Ireland. Some of us were lectured for years, including by today’s Opposition spokesman, that the Irish Government would never contemplate that in any circumstances, so the stench of hypocrisy is strong. Will the Minister assure me that we will never allow the Republic to return those people to Northern Ireland unless and until we can remove illegal cross-channel migrants to France? As for the contemptible remarks of the SNP spokesman, let me say that at least the UK has a Government, which is more than we can say for Scotland this week.
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend knows that this Government are resolutely opposed to a hard border on the island of Ireland. I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has requested an urgent meeting with the Irish Government to seek assurances that there will be no adverse implications for the smooth operation of either the common travel area or the Good Friday agreement. That is an important meeting and he is right to seek it. I reiterate that we would welcome a returns agreement with the EU. We think it is right that we explore those opportunities and we will continue to pursue that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
When I was first elected to this House, we often debated safe and legal routes, but we do not hear much about that any more. Many of my constituents are writing to me because they want a family reunion scheme for their relatives in Gaza. I recently co-authored a report with Helena Kennedy recommending that the UK Government have a humanitarian visa for women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Will the Minister therefore tell me whether the Government have any plans to announce any safe and legal routes before the next general election?
Tom Pursglove
I am sure the hon. and learned Lady has followed the position closely. Through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, we made a commitment, which was reflected in the legislation, to publish the cap and the statutory instrument that sits alongside it, which will support our efforts to provide resettlement opportunities in this country for people in the years ahead. That work is on track and we will deliver on that commitment, and I will be able to say more in due course.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
In December, Care England appeared before my Select Committee and told us that the care sector had been “blindsided” by the change to ban overseas care workers from bringing dependants to the UK. The Government’s impact assessment said that the policy would not affect the number of those applying to come here and help look after our constituents, yet today’s figures show that care worker applications have decreased by more than half. We all want to see a care sector sustained by domestic labour—why wouldn’t we? However, with 152,000 vacancies to the end of March this year, is that decrease the intention or the unintended consequence of these changes?
Tom Pursglove
As I have consistently described, the situation on dependants has been unsustainable. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we saw 120,000 dependants coming with 100,000 care workers. That position could not realistically continue to be sustained. We are in the very early stages of the delivery of these measures; the health and social care changes have only just come into force. My hon. Friend will want to satisfy himself on this having looked at the figures across a number of months, but I reiterate that there are huge opportunities associated with domestic recruitment and enormous work is going on in government with a focus on retention. That is the right way to deal with these challenges, but a health and social care visa route is still available for people. It is not unreasonable to think that in future individuals without dependants will come—they will still be able to come—and that is entirely appropriate.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
When the Minister gave a statement to the House, he said that the Government had extended the hand of friendship to those fleeing persecution and oppression. Is he aware that a considerable number of people who are in Calais, or who have crossed the channel and tried to get to this country, are victims of human rights abuse, environmental disaster and wars, some of which this country has been involved in, such as in Afghanistan? His answer is to demonise them and to try to force them to go to Rwanda. Should he not think for a moment of a sense of humanity about people in a desperate situation, through no fault of their own, looking for a place of safety in a country that was involved in the war in Afghanistan in the first place?
Tom Pursglove
I am exceptionally proud of the work that this country, supported by the Home Office and its teams, has done as part of the enormous resettlement efforts we have taken forward in recent years. Only last week, I had the real privilege to spend some time with a team who had been supporting new Afghan arrivals through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. I was incredibly moved by that work. Those individuals had come through a safe and legal route, and we will continue to see those commitments through. The UK has played its part and it will continue to do so. But what is not right, in any sense, is to give the impression that anybody ought to be getting in a small boat, having paid an evil criminal gang to do so, and coming across the channel and risking their life. We saw a young girl lose her life only last week. Nobody needs to leave those French shores in order to find safety. We do have safe and legal routes, and it is right that people come through those.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Fifteen months after the Government announced that they were taking over the whole of RAF Scampton and putting 2,000 migrants there, not a single one has arrived. We have fought the Home Office to a complete standstill and everything we have said has been proved correct; the costs are rising exponentially from £5 million to £27 million, and the buildings are decaying, as is the runway. The Labour party has now joined me in my early-day motion against this proposal. We have involved the Levelling Up Secretary, who is now imposing all sorts of conditions on the Home Office. Will the excellent, first-class Minister before us today now ensure that his attention is laser-focused on working with us and doing what we have argued for from the beginning: releasing the entire site to Scampton Holdings so that we can get the biggest and best levelling up we have ever had on a former RAF base?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for his constituents. He knows that I am exceptionally sympathetic to trying to deliver this regeneration project for Lincolnshire. I appreciate entirely the enormous economic benefit and opportunity that it presents for people in the Scampton area, from a perspective of not only amenities but jobs. We are working intensively with him and with the local authority to move this forward. We do of course need to realise our accommodation ambitions for that site in the short term, but I also want to find and agree a way forward that means that those regeneration ambitions can also be realised as quickly as possible.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We now know that it is the Government’s intention to pay board and lodging for five years for anyone voluntarily removed to Rwanda. That commitment will fall heavily on the next Government, if this one are even successful in getting anyone to Rwanda. So how much is this nonsense going to cost?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that if we were to adopt the approach of the Labour Front Benchers, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt subscribes to, we would continue to have uncontrolled immigration to our country via the channel. He offers no alternative solution to the one that the Government are taking forward. That is an unsustainable position. I am confident that the Rwanda policy will help to bring to an end the channel crossings, put the evil criminal gangs out of business and get the issue under control. That has to be right. What is clearly unacceptable is to parade around with no credible policy alternative and just pretend that everything is going to be okay.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is very encouraging to hear the news about the progress on tackling both legal and illegal migration, and particularly about the operationalisation of the Rwanda policy. I pushed on a number of occasions for further schemes with other third countries, because we need to see that deterrent, but I was told that we were waiting for the delivery of the Rwanda scheme. Now that we have delivered the Rwanda scheme through Parliament, will the Minister look again at further schemes with other third countries, so that we can offer the maximum possible deterrent to those trying to come here illegally?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is right on the point about deterrents. He has been very supportive of our work that has seen Albanian arrivals fall by 90%. Again, that shows the value that deterrents have. I know the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration has been having conversations with the Vietnamese about the small boat arrivals we have seen from Vietnam. We will continue to work hard to deliver more international co-operation in this space. I also think it is right that the Home Secretary is spending considerable amounts of his time and energy on informing the conversation internationally about what more we can do to tackle these migratory flows. We know that where we led the way in announcing our Rwanda policy, others internationally are seeking to follow.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Yesterday, my 21-year-old Springburn constituent, Abdullah Salimi, was detained. He was then taken on a 10-hour journey from Scotland to England, I suspect because in Scotland he would get legal aid and he would have legal representation, but down here he will have none. During the 10-hour journey, he was given no water and no food. Is that right? Is that acceptable? What is the reason for that? He had his phone taken off him so he could not contact anybody or tell anybody. Is that right? Is that acceptable? What is the reason for that?
Anne McLaughlin
I haven’t finished. I emailed the Home Office last night and I went to the Home Office this morning, but officials refused to give me any information. I went with a letter for one of the Minister’s colleagues, but they refused to take the letter. I am Mr Salimi’s MP. I have the right to know what is going on in his life and the right to try to represent him. Why am I being denied that and why is he being denied the rights that the Minister enjoyed at the age of 21?
Tom Pursglove
I am a British citizen who is in this country legally. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will allow me to finish the point, it is entirely right and proper that people are detained on a legal basis for the purposes of removal under this policy, but there are always safeguards around that. I will gladly accept the letter from the hon. Lady and ensure it reaches the right destination in the Home Office. We will, in the normal way, look carefully at any concerns she wishes to raise. I recognise that she is entirely opposed to the policy objective we are seeking to advance. There is a principled disagreement there—she thinks I am wrong about this, I think she is wrong—but if she would like to share those specific points with me, I will gladly ensure that she receives a full response.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The signs of a fall in net migration will be welcomed across Amber Valley. Can I raise my concerns about the situation where a young UK national works abroad for a while and forms a relationship, but is not yet earning enough to sponsor their spouse to live in the UK? Is there more we can do to help in this situation, perhaps by clarifying in the guidance that they can use both their salaries to meet the earnings threshold?
Tom Pursglove
There has been no change to the way that the various family visa requirements can be met, through savings and the like. We had a good debate last week in Westminster Hall on the important safeguard of article 8 rights. As part of the consideration of any application, all those factors are given proper and due consideration to ensure we get the right decisions on individual cases. We think it is right to introduce these salary changes—they are being increased incrementally and not applied retrospectively—but as I say, there is an important safeguard around article 8 rights.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We have supported this policy, albeit with some reservations, because we believe it is important to break the criminal gang model and ensure the stability of the United Kingdom. However, I am not convinced today by the Minister’s argument given that we are sending one person to Rwanda with £3,000 in their pocket and we are still looking for half the people who are meant to be sent there.
This week, the Irish Government, in an attempt to divert attention from their own domestic failures on housing and immigration, have started a row about immigrants coming from the United Kingdom into the Irish Republic and have refused to publish the deal—it is the usual Brit-bashing exercise that they engage in. The Minister has been asked twice today but has not given an answer, so will he tell us what specific measures he will put in place to ensure that the cynical Irish Government do not simply bus immigrants to the border and dump them in Northern Ireland?
Tom Pursglove
The situation he describes would not be appropriate. That is a matter for the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, who leads on that work within the Home Office. We have been clear that if there is a desire for a returns deal, that needs to be done with the EU in the way the British people would rightly expect.
On the right hon. Member’s earlier point about Rwanda, the voluntary return we saw is part of an established approach to voluntary returns that was in place even when the last Labour Government were in office. We are now getting on and delivering a wider scheme. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will operationalise that over the course of the next 10 to 12 weeks. We are determined to send individuals with no right to be here to Rwanda and to put out of business the evil criminal gangs responsible for the misery in the channel.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the news about the reduction in the number of legal migrants. Immigration must be set at sustainable levels so that migrants can integrate properly into our country. Does the Minister agree that to fill any skills gap, it is vital that we ensure that we upskill our own people and not become dependent on immigration? Will he confirm that his Department is working with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure we achieve that?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. There is concerted effort going on across Government, building on the back to work plan. I am playing my part in discussions with colleagues from the Department for Education, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and a whole host of other Departments, including that of the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is in his place. We are going sector by sector looking at what more we can do to support the domestic recruitment of staff in the first instance. That is the right approach to this. It is not right to resort to immigration as the first port of call. My hon. Friend’s support for those efforts and endeavours is appreciated.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Labour pushed the Government into scrapping the unfair 20% wage discount on jobs on the shortage occupation list. Will the Minister explain why it took so long for the Government to adopt our policy?
Tom Pursglove
I do not see it like that. Labour’s policy is a blank sheet of paper. This Government’s policy is a credible offering to get on and deliver on legal and illegal migration. The good news is that those efforts are delivering results.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister has said that the numbers of applications for skilled worker health and care visas and for student visas are down 24%. Astonishingly, he is proud of that. International students bring massive economic benefits to the UK. In my constituency alone, that is worth £83 million per annum. They are also highly mobile. If the graduate route is closed, we lose out economically but, more importantly, our businesses lose skills and the ability to develop and expand. Will the Minister confirm that there are no plans to close the graduate visa route?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member presents the Government’s position in, I would argue, an inaccurate and disingenuous light. The fact is that we want to see a balanced approach to migration. The position around dependants was not sustainable. She will also recognise that there is a proper process, which is ongoing, in relation to the graduate route. The Migration Advisory Committee is looking at that route, looking at the data and taking representations and will report in a proper way to the Department. Ministers will then take decisions around those recommendations, taking full account of the facts and having proper conversations within Government about the right way forward, but it is entirely right that we wait for the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Can the Minister explain what will happen to the more than 150,000 people whom the Refugee Council estimates cannot be removed to Rwanda or returned to their home country since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act 2023? Does he accept that those people, stuck in limbo, are likely to be reliant on Home Office support or go underground?
Tom Pursglove
I will not get into the operational specifics of the work that is ongoing to operationalise the Rwanda policy. We are clear that there is a basis on which we can send people to Rwanda for the purposes of relocation, with the ultimate objective of putting out of business the evil criminal gangs who are responsible for bringing people here, but we work cohort by cohort and we take appropriate decisions for individuals according to the circumstances that are relevant in each specific case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to all the questions today. Clearly, the Government have a policy that they are trying to implement, and I think they need some support from Members across the Chamber to make that happen. The Home Office has stated that a crackdown on visas has led to an 80% fall in skilled worker visas. Does the Minister agree that our fishing sector relies on the provision of skilled workers? What steps can be taken to ensure that the fisheries do not suffer as a result of what the Minister has said today?
Tom Pursglove
Historically, the Government have been very generous and allowed the fishing and seafood processing sectors to have a privileged position within the immigration system, with quite considerable support. There has been some legitimate and understandable concerns raised around the risks of exploitation and the need to safeguard people properly. I make this offer again having made it previously to the sector: if it has ideas about how we can still uphold those duties to safeguard people and about how the English language requirement can still be met in a way that is conducive to helping the industry, I would welcome those representations and that evidence base.
UK Trade Performance
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the UK’s trade performance.
When I am overseas, as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, other countries speak with nothing but admiration and respect for what we are achieving in Britain. As the chief executive officer of Nissan Global recently remarked:
“It is surprising to hear people asking why they should choose the UK”—
because, in his words,
“we have both great people and great talent here.”
Certainly, in the firms that I have visited up and down this country, I am proud to see our employers and exporters firing on all cylinders. Yet, when I return to Westminster, some people seem unaware of the progress that we have made as an independent trading nation. Today, I want to put that right.
The latest trade data, published by the Office for National Statistics and also by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, should give everyone in this House cause for celebration and renewed pride in our country. They confirmed that the strategy the public voted for on 23 June 2016 is delivering. Leaving the European Union was a vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom, and we are seeing results. Since that referendum, the UK economy has grown faster than that of Germany, Italy and Japan, and contrary to gloomy predictions, our manufacturing productivity has grown more than that of Germany, France, Italy and the USA.
According to the latest UN statistics, the UK, outside the EU, became the world’s fourth biggest exporter in 2022, overtaking Japan, the Netherlands and France. The value of UK exports was £862 billion in the 12 months to February 2024. That builds on progress we have made in growing our exports outside the confines of the EU. Exports are now 2% above 2018 when adjusted for inflation. Services exports are at an all-time high. A summary of these figures, along with the most recent business and labour statistics, were published on gov.uk in April. Together, they definitively disprove the claims of those who prophesied a catastrophic economic collapse when we left the EU to become a sovereign nation.
Today, we are selling not only more services to EU countries than ever before, but record amounts of services to the rest of the world, too. We are the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Far from an exodus of businesses out of the UK, European firms have doubled down on their commitments to the UK. In 2020, Unilever chose to headquarter exclusively in London over Rotterdam. Since 2022, Cadbury has brought more chocolate production back to the UK from Germany. In the same year, Shell moved its headquarters out of the Netherlands and into the UK.
We are tearing down the barriers to trade. Since the start of 2022, we have resolved barriers all over the world, estimated to be worth more than £15 billion to UK businesses over a five-year period. In 2023, this was equivalent to removing around £1 million-worth of trade barriers every single hour. British pork farmers are benefiting from newly agreed access to the Mexican market, which is worth £80 million over the same period. Our work on bottle labelling for UK gin and whisky has driven up exports to Chile by tonnes. We have ended the US ban on British beef and lamb.
We are working to deliver a strategy on a situation that faces the whole world, not just our friends and neighbours in Europe. This is crucial if we are to lock Britain into the future of where global growth will be. In 2022, the EU took more than 60% of UK goods exports. In 2023, this was 47%, because UK goods exports to the EU remained broadly flat, while exports to non-EU countries rose by around 70% in real terms.
We are going further to seize the benefits of an independent trade policy. We have deals with 73 countries around the world, with more to come under this Government, plus the most comprehensive trade deal to which the EU has ever agreed. Later this year, we will join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the world’s biggest trading blocs. This will mean that more than 99% of UK goods will be eligible for zero tariffs in some of the Asia Pacific’s most dynamic economies. British business is set to benefit.
As well as service exports, where Britain excels, our top goods sales were in cars, mechanical-powered generators, medicines, pharmaceutical products and aircraft components. We have one of the world’s largest manufacturing sectors. Productivity in our manufacturing industry has grown faster than in every other G7 nation since 2010. Hundreds of businesses in steel, chemicals and other sectors stand to benefit from the newly introduced British industry supercharger, which is bringing energy costs down for key industries. Our £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan is opening new markets and removing obstacles to growth while helping to crowd in new funding for plants and factories throughout the UK. Every penny the UK Government spend on manufacturing is matched fivefold by the growth creators of the private sector. This pro-investment approach is working: the UK’s automotive sector attracted £3.7 billion-worth of greenfield foreign investment in 2022 alone.
The Labour party will remember Mr Alastair Campbell, who asserted during the referendum that if we leave the EU, Nissan will leave. Nissan is still here. The two new 100% electric models are set to be built at its Sunderland this year. More Minis are rolling off production lines in Oxfordshire today, thanks to a £600 million investment from BMW. These are firms that look for opportunities the world over and decide that the UK is the place to be. Listening to some of the remarks made in this House and elsewhere, people would think that our country was not worth investing in at all. Let us be clear: the British ingenuity and industry that made this country prosper in the past still exists today, and even if those on the Opposition Benches cannot see it, international investors certainly can.
The statistics published by my Department show that the UK’s inward FDI stock has reached more than £2 trillion. Our FDI stock is the highest in Europe—more than Germany, France and Italy combined. The most recent OECD data show that our employment rate is higher than that of the US, France and Italy.
The regulatory freedoms that we gained by leaving the EU have allowed our smarter regulation programme to cut the red tape that has been holding them back. We have already reformed the working time directive reporting requirements, saving businesses up to £1 billion per year. We recently announced that we will raise the thresholds that determine company size, reducing burdens on smaller businesses, and remove low-value and overlapping reporting requirements.
Those changes will make reporting simpler and deliver savings of around £150 million per year to UK companies, with small and medium-sized companies benefiting by around £145 million. It is no surprise that the most recent NatWest SME business activity index shows that output is increasing strongly, driven by renewed manufacturing sector expansion, and companies’ activity expectations remain upbeat. These things do not happen by accident, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome those figures.
I have no doubt that this statement will disappoint some people, as it does not align with the story that they want to tell of a nation riven by injustice and economic stagnation, clinging to Europe for any hope for the future. That is not to say that everything is perfect—of course there is still more to do—but we are not alone in our problems. Ministers in other countries are quick to remind me about supply-chain issues affecting everything from getting car components to stocking supermarket shelves. They tell me about how they are coping with problems in the jobs market, as societies from Germany to Japan get older.
Only when I am back in the UK am I told that all these issues are down to Brexit. Far from it. Our plans are working, and Britain is thriving as an independent sovereign home of free enterprise and free trade. That is what the recent figures published by my Department, by the ONS, and by the UN tell me. It is what our businesses, exporters, employers and investors all tell me, and I hope that hon. Members present can see it too. I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As usual, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am always pleased to hear any positive news on trade and investment, but she appears, presumably inadvertently, to have missed out one or two facts and issues in her statement.
Under the Conservative party, business has suffered from endless U-turns and policy changes that undermine investment. There have been constant changes on policies, from net zero to corporate governance. The Government’s failure to address the big challenges facing business, such as skills shortages, infrastructure issues and net zero, have undermined business confidence. Foreign direct investment figures are down nearly 30% since 2016-17, according to the Government’s own figures. Without an industrial strategy, and with constant policy uncertainty, more businesses will not have the confidence to invest in the UK.
Specifically on trade, British exports in the past decade have grown slower than those of any other member of the G7 besides Japan. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, since the Secretary of State was appointed, British exports have dropped and are expected to decline again this year, with at best anaemic growth in each of the next three years. Ministers have cut funding to help small businesses get to the international trade shows that they need to attend in order to find new export markets, and have cut funding to allow business groups to lead their own trade missions to win vital new orders for British business.
Farmers and Conservative members think that the Government’s record on trade negotiations is one of giving away far too much for far too little in return. Ministers delivered a poor trade deal with Europe that has put up barriers to trade, raised costs for businesses and helped to drive up prices, and there is no sign of any plan to use next year’s review of the trade and co-operation agreement to try to address at least some of those issues. Then there is the Conservatives’ failure to deliver on the promises in their manifesto at the last general election to have trade agreements in place with at least 80% of the world, and to have a trade deal with the United States. The target to deliver £1 trillion of exports has been moved many times, and will at best be delivered 15 years late.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady could answer the following questions. Last week, we heard about the impact that the Government’s constant flip-flopping is having on the automotive sector, with Stellantis airing serious warnings. What discussions has she had with the Transport Secretary to try to mitigate the impact of the Conservative party’s chaos? As the devastating news from south Wales continues to come, we have heard next to nothing from the Secretary of State on the damage that she has allowed to our steel industry. Does she still think that spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant and leave us as the first developed country with no primary steelmaking capacity was “a great deal”, as she said at the time?
Given that this House has repeatedly been promised an amazing trade deal with India, usually by Diwali, will the right hon. Lady update the House on the state of free trade agreement negotiations with India? Lastly, given the media reports at the weekend, which have caused concern, will she update the House on whether FTA negotiations with the Gulf Co-operation Council are still ongoing or have stalled?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I could see that it was very difficult for him to find things to pick at in the statement, so I broadly welcome some of what he said, which implied that the good news is true.
The hon. Gentleman started with the OBR. He picked that statistic very selectively. Of course exports fell during covid; exports overall have grown. Many Opposition Members will say, “Oh, it’s just services.” That is because they do not understand the UK economy. The UK economy is 80% services, so it is good that services exports are going up. That is what we mainly do in this country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Stellantis, and talked about U-turns. I remind him that the whole House voted for the net zero by 2050 target. It happened under a previous Conservative Government, but with the consent of the whole House. When business talks, we listen. The Opposition criticised us for making the changes that Stellantis asked for, so why is he now raising those comments? The Transport Secretary, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion—we do have discussions—and we extended the zero-emission vehicle mandate to ensure that we were not imposing undue costs on people if they were not ready to take up electric vehicles. We listen; the Opposition do not. Look at their plans for net zero. I assure the hon. Gentleman that businesses are absolutely terrified about what Labour would do with its new green deal, and all the measures that would just put costs on businesses and consumers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about steel. I am afraid that I need to correct several points. We saved jobs in Port Talbot—8,000 jobs were going to be lost, and we saved 5,000. If we want a net zero transition, we will have to move to electric arc furnaces, which require fewer staff. The Opposition cannot blame the Government for that while demanding a transition to net zero. We saved 5,000 jobs in Port Talbot. We invested £500 million out of a total £2 billion investment made with Tata. It is wrong to say that the Government are not saving steel; we are the only ones who have a plan for steel. The Opposition have no plan. We have a great plan, which will transform and regenerate south Wales.
The other thing that the hon. Gentleman said that was incorrect was about us having no primary steel production. We still have British Steel in Scunthorpe. There may be changes in Port Talbot around moving to electric arc furnaces, but he needs to remember that even the steel production that we have there relies on imports. We do not have iron ore here, so I recommend that he gets a briefing on exactly what is going on with steel production in the UK.
On India, the hon. Gentleman is right that a deal was promised by Diwali under a previous Prime Minister, but as soon as I became Trade Secretary, I said in this House over and over that it is about the deal, not the day. We do not sign trade deals that will not make businesses happy. We are keen to ensure that whatever we do will do right by our farmers. The Opposition laughed when I paused the FTA discussions with Canada. That was because what the Canadians were offering was not going to be good. The industry there is complaining that the UK got too good a deal from the CPTPP, but the Opposition do not talk about that. We are negotiating great deals for this country. I am very proud of the work that my Ministers and my Department are doing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful for the statement. It is wonderful news on exports; it shows that all the pessimism at the time of the referendum was completely wrong. I fully support the approach of the Secretary of State in delaying the target for battery vehicles, because people are not buying them in enough quantities, but will she add to that by adopting the advice of Stellantis not to fine motor manufacturers here for producing good petrol and diesel cars before people are ready to buy electric ones, because that is putting off investors?
Kemi Badenoch
I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. This is something that we have heard from some bodies in industry. The auto sector is giving us two different messages. Some people want us to bring the mandate forward and make the change faster; others want us to delay it. It is a very tricky balance. We understand the concerns. We do not want to put additional burdens on business, so he is right to make that point. I have made representations to the Transport Secretary, but this is his policy area, and he will make the ultimate decision.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
With these selective statistics, the Secretary of State would clearly make a good cherry-picker, while clutching at straws at the same time. The reality is that we still have a cost of living crisis, and I would welcome her to my constituency to tell people there how rosy things apparently are in the UK. Real GDP growth in the UK—growth since before the pandemic—is just 1%. That is one third of the EU average figure, and one eighth of US growth.
The here and now figures are even worse. The UK economy shrank in 2023, whereas there was significant growth in the G7 and the OECD average. Now is probably the only time in living history that the UK economy has been on a par with Germany’s—but sadly that is because Germany is also an international outlier in lacking economic growth. Volumes of UK goods imports and exports are 7.4% smaller than in 2018—the biggest five-year decline for which comparative records exist.
The Secretary of State is right that exports to the EU are up, but imports from the EU are also up, so the trading deficit with the EU has increased by more than 5%. Allianz Trade has estimated that the introduction yesterday of new customs and checks procedures on animal and plant products and goods entering the UK will cost British business £2 billion a year. UK Energy also estimates that energy bills are £1 billion a year higher due to post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Instead of talking up the minimal savings from what the Secretary of State calls “cutting red tape”, I wish she would tell the truth about the trading cost increases resulting from Brexit red tape for businesses in the UK, not to mention the impact of labour shortages. This Parliament is set to break a lot of records: we have the biggest drop in living standards, the longest decline in GDP per capita, the steepest five-year decline in volume of trade, and the stock market shrinking at its fastest pace in history. Which of these record-breaking achievements for broken Britain is she most proud of?
Kemi Badenoch
It was very interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about his constituents. What he should tell them—certainly what I would, if I was there—is that under the seven-year Administration of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP welfare economy grew at half the growth rate of England’s economy. If the SNP had achieved growth in line with England, it could have increased Scotland’s economy by £15 billion. Instead, that welfare economy means no growth, because of Scotland having the highest income tax rates in the UK, and higher wages in the public sector than in the private sector. The SNP’s policies are not helping.
The hon. Gentleman asks questions—[Interruption.] He does not want to hear the facts, but I will give him the facts. He talks about the real, pre-pandemic GDP figure. Of course the pandemic had an impact; we cannot stand here and pretend that it did not. Even the statistics I am quoting showed that covid had a far bigger impact than leaving the EU ever will, just as Russia’s war in Ukraine will have a far bigger impact than leaving the EU. He talks about international outliers, which shows that he is the one who is cherry-picking. We have to look at our peer countries, because we will not grow as quickly as developing countries. It is astonishing that he is also complaining that imports from the EU are up. That shows that, despite our leaving the European Union, trade is doing well and things are going well. If his Scottish Government took some lessons from the UK Government, they would see much better things happening for their constituents.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and especially the fact that Japan was mentioned on, I think, five or six occasions. The latest statistics show there has been a £777 million increase in total trade between our two countries, which works out at an increase of 2.9%. I would also welcome her to an event that we are hosting with Baker McKenzie in the first week of June, launching Baker McKenzie’s UK Japan Connect, which seeks to foster business and trade between our countries.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I will check my diary to see if I am available for the event, but I am glad that he raises the issue of trade with Japan. We signed an upgraded FTA with Japan after leaving the EU, so these roll-over deals are no longer roll-over deals, because we are adding more into them, especially the digital trade chapters. These are deals fit for the 21st century—the age we live in—rather than the 20th century.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is good to see the Secretary of State in the House again. I know she has a difference of opinion sometimes with the Office for Budget Responsibility, but can she confirm that the OBR’s figures for March 2024 show that the UK has the lowest trade intensity in the G7? There was important progress, as she has reported today, but much of it rests on progress in our services trade, which provokes the question of why we are not pursuing services-only trade agreements in a more expansive way, not least as the Minister for Trade Policy was unable to confirm whether any comprehensive free trade deals would be signed before the election when he came before the Committee yesterday. He said that services-only deals were not allowed under World Trade Organisation rules, which of course is flat-out wrong.
The question I want to put to the Secretary of State is about our goods trade. The Office for National Statistics figures show that our goods exports have fallen by about £31 billion over a year. The risk is that that number will be hit even harder by the chaos at the border. The new border operating model involves data that is submitted by traders, but then not shared with ports; sometimes two hours’ notice is needed for a journey that only takes 90 minutes; there is no standardisation of inspection charges; and British Chambers of Commerce says that many businesses will be hit by thousands of pounds-worth of customs bills that they did not know they were on the hook for.
The question is this: did the Secretary of State warn her colleagues in Cabinet that there would be complete chaos, and that the EU checks that we are introducing would be a disaster? That is what small business is saying to me, and I know it is what small business is saying to her.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks why we are not pursuing services-only deals. We have done two of those: one with Singapore and one with Ukraine about digital trade exclusively. However, it is an area where we need both sides to agree, and most countries still want a goods deal; for many of the countries that we are negotiating with, goods are still the larger part of their economy. We have to bear that in mind, because trade deals are not a one-way story.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes my statement. He will of course know that I am not somebody who pretends that everything is perfect and nothing could be better. I do think things could be improved, but one thing we have to acknowledge, in reference to his comments about the border operating model, is that the people voted to leave the European Union. There will be opportunities and there will be costs. Farmers regularly tell us that they want better food standard checks and other checks at the border. That will impose a cost. We have done everything we can to minimise those costs—we have even found cost savings in doing so. I have heard many scare stories about what businesses will see at the border, but not all of them will apply. We are doing everything we can to minimise the burden, but the fact is that the EU imposed the same measures on the other side, and we need to give our producers a level playing field.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Business and Trade Committee. I am a relatively new member of the Committee; I joined this year. I recall my first meeting, at which we heard that the UK has had the third-highest foreign direct investment over the past years; we are behind only the US and China. This week, at our meeting with the Minister for Trade Policy, we heard about our trade deals with over 70 countries, including the landmark CPTPP. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that that track record of success contrasts starkly with Labour’s track record? Under Labour, the UK’s share of global trade declined. Does she agree that, just perhaps, aside from the Chairman of the Select Committee, there is not a single Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber who wants to hear about that track record of success, because they do not have a leg to stand on?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. She is right, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who was a Labour Trade Minister, could verify those figures about our trade dropping.
Kemi Badenoch
He is shaking his head. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, we were often told that we would never be able to get those 73 trade deals—we were mocked—and that nobody would sign any deals with the UK that were like what we had in the EU. We got 73 done, and many of them we have actually improved on. We in this House must remind people that we have done much good; they may forget. People live in the moment, and we have to remind them of our record—and this is a record we should be proud of.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
As much as we welcome the good figures that have been produced, Northern Ireland still suffers from not having full access to the trade deals that the United Kingdom has struck throughout the world with 70 countries. What measures would ensure that we can take advantage of those deals and get rid of the injustice of the protocol and the difficulties that it causes businesses in Northern Ireland?
Kemi Badenoch
We have been doing a lot in Northern Ireland to increase investment and make up for any shortfall, whether through our trade deals or otherwise. The Windsor framework, for example, is one thing that the Prime Minister has worked on to iron out some of those issues. We are looking at where Northern Ireland can exploit the benefits of being part of both the EU single market and the UK single market, which is a unique position. We know that there are some areas in which things are not exactly the same as in GB, but we can look individually in specific trade deals at what we can do. In services, for example, that should not be an issue; we really see the difference in goods. We can do a lot more and we continue to work on that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we cast our minds back to the time of covid, when we were spending hundreds of billions of pounds just to keep the country functioning, none of us could have imagined sets of statistics as positive as those that she has given us? May I re-emphasise a point that has already been made in slightly different terms? There appear to be eight times as many people sitting on the Conservative Front Bench as there are on the entirety of the Labour Back Benches. Does she take that as a vote of confidence in the Government’s positive message?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that Labour does not like good news. As soon as there is any, Labour Members exit the Chamber unless they absolutely have to be here. It is disgraceful that there is not a single Back-Bench Labour Member, other than the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), is blushing because she knows that it is true. That is one reason why it is important for us not to assume that people see these statistics. If we do not talk about them, nobody else will. Enough people out there—certainly on the Labour Benches—will tell us how terrible everything is, but we need to remind people about the good that is happening.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In complete contrast to the rosy picture that the Government are trying to paint, there are some inconvenient truths that have been left out. From this week, new checks on food imports from the EU will see costs for importers rise by 60%, which will have a severe impact on small businesses and consumers alike. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to lay out how consumers and small businesses will be protected from those severe new costs?
Kemi Badenoch
I seem to remember a time when some Liberal Democrats were complaining that we did not have any checks at the border, and that that showed that standards in this country were low. If we do something, they immediately make the opposite argument—there is no consistency whatsoever. I explained in response to an earlier question why we are doing this and how it is of benefit. It is about maintaining standards. The other thing that the hon. Lady should realise is that we have been able to reduce tariffs on loads of products—thousands of products—from across the world, which also helps to reduce prices and tackle inflation.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome this statement on the Government’s progress on business and trade. It is fantastic news to hear that the UK has been the fourth biggest exporter in the world. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya, I have been meeting British businesses regularly to better understand how the Government can help them to export to that key market. During my most recent visit to Nairobi, I have been focused on delivering the UK’s flagship projects, including Nairobi Railway City and the High Grand Falls dam. Will my right hon. Friend continue to remove barriers for British businesses to ensure that they can grow their exports to key markets such as Kenya?
Kemi Badenoch
First, I thank my hon. Friend for all her work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya. She will know that officials have been engaging with their Kenyan counterparts to progress work on market access barriers, including working closely with UK industry and Kenya’s Anti-Counterfeit Authority to address the issues facing British exporters. We are doing a lot of work to deepen collaboration between the UK and Kenya, which wants our expertise, especially in important sectors such as healthcare and financial services. I hope that I will be able to work further with my hon. Friend to deliver more trade between the two countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her positivity, which is encouraging for the House, for the country and for this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I ask this question constructively. Figures have shown that from 2021 to 2023 there was a slight decrease in the number of new jobs created in the United Kingdom. What discussions has she had with the Department for the Economy, and the NI Assembly, about Northern Ireland’s contribution to creating new employment in 2024-25, so that the figures can remain on the increase, as they did in the years prior to 2021?
Kemi Badenoch
I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that we cannot be complacent about what is happening in either country. Even as we talk about good news, we need to continue working to ensure that those things do not disappear. He is right that we should do as much as we can with the Department for the Economy. Now that a Minister is in place, it will be a lot easier for us to co-ordinate and see how we can work together to increase employment and improve wages and productivity in both regions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It was particularly encouraging to hear the news about the manufacturing sector. However, as she will be aware, if growth in that sector is to be maintained, continued Government support will be needed. Will it be forthcoming?
Kemi Badenoch
We have put in place a £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan for the manufacturing sector. Firms will need to ensure that they qualify for that funding. We are also doing what we can to bring in investment—especially foreign investment—which will help to drive productivity. It is good to see that business and investors globally want to invest all across the UK, not just in London, and not just in financial services but in manufacturing, certainly, and in our green industries of offshore and renewables. There is so much that we can do that will create industries and companies fit for the future.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that these superb trade figures are brought to the attention of Parliament. Trade between the UK and Morocco has grown consistently since the entry into force of the UK-Morocco association agreement just last month. A UK consortium won the tender to design the Casablanca stadium for the 2030 World cup, which will be the second largest stadium in the world by seating capacity. Does she agree that it is thanks to Brexit that we can forge such one-to-one trade agreements that are of real benefit to British businesses, and does she share my view, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Morocco, that we should continue to prioritise work with Morocco, which is a dynamic and growing trade partner?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should continue to prioritise trade with Morocco and countries like it. I remember that when we had a tomato shortage in western Europe, Morocco was one of the countries that had cheaper supplies, and we can drop tariffs on such products when shortages are affecting all of western Europe, not just the UK. So much flexibility comes of being able to have our own independent trade policy. I pay tribute to him for his work as trade envoy to Morocco, as I should have done to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for his work as trade envoy to the western Balkans. There are so many trade envoys in the Chamber today, and I am grateful for all their work to support our Department and deliver the good news stories that we are talking about today.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly with regards to growth in manufacturing and exporting. Great Grimsby has a huge amount of opportunity in carbon capture and storage, as well as in our UK seafood processing industry, which is the biggest such cluster in the country. Does she attribute some of the developing growth to UK freeports, one of which is in Grimsby? I look forward to welcoming her very soon.
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, freeports are another policy that has come about from our ability to leave the European Union. We are doing everything we can to bring in that investment. Carbon capture and storage is one area in which we think the UK can lead. We have the expertise and a lot of the talent and skills. Many of the people who want to understand that technology are coming to the UK. I hope that we can do more for my hon. Friend and her constituents in Great Grimsby, and I will look into what we can do to ensure that I or another Minister comes to see the good work taking place there.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I hugely welcome the upbeat nature of this statement and the Secretary of State’s reference to Britain joining CPTPP. Snowdonia Cheese, which is based in my constituency, also looks forward to the UK’s accession to CPTPP and the generous, tariff-free access to the Canadian and Mexican markets that it will bring. It is understood that that access may be available as soon as later this year, so would my right hon. Friend kindly ask one of her officials to get in touch with that company to keep it updated on progress?
Kemi Badenoch
I am very happy to do so. My hon. Friend is right that our accession to CPTPP is carrying on: as he knows, we have ratified the Bill in Parliament, and three of the CPTPP countries have completed their own processes—there are only a handful to go—so I do think this is something that will be possible. I will arrange for officials to meet representatives of the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency to have that conversation.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
We are in the Chamber to talk about the progress of British business, so it is telling that Labour MPs have not bothered to show up. If today’s Financial Times is to be believed, that is because they are desperately trying to find businesses to talk about the latest reversal of Labour party policy, which is on Labour’s very damaging approach to the labour market. Its approach would place additional laws on business that would stifle enterprise and hand out more bungs to its paymasters in the trade unions, so does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to back British business is to get the right regulation, not the stifling legislation that the Labour party would put in place?
Kemi Badenoch
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing so much to get our regulatory environment right, and I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done in this area. I know it is something that he cares about, and I thank him for many of the suggestions and much of the advice that he has provided to me.
The right regulatory environment can and will deliver growth. I am terrified by some of the things that I see the Labour party putting forward, and businesses do not like them either. Those flexible rights from day one would mean that if a business employs someone and they do not turn up to work on their first day, that business could not sack them, which would be a disaster. We have done so much on labour rights, but it is not the area that is going to deliver growth, certainly not with the policies that Labour is putting forward.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly when it comes to manufacturing and exports. I thank her personally for the time she took yesterday to meet Johnson Tiles, Churchill China and Steelite—great manufacturers of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke—as well as Rob Flello, the chief executive officer of Ceramics UK. Despite what has been a very challenging time for the industry, particularly due to the rise in energy prices sparked by Vladimir Putin’s illegal and immoral war in Ukraine, can the Secretary of State assure me that the ceramics industry will be able to take part fully and play a big role in ensuring that we export the very best of Britain around the world, particularly through future free trade agreements with countries such as India?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, that is right. With our FTAs, we are trying to ensure that we deliver for businesses; if businesses are not happy, those FTAs will not work. The FTAs are going to be used by businesses, not by politicians—it is not about the photos that are taken.
I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting he organised yesterday with representatives of the ceramics industry and ceramics producers in his constituency. We understand the difficulties that they face, with energy costs having risen following the war in Ukraine, and we are doing everything we can; I talked about the supercharger, which should help to deliver for those who are electricity users. We understand the changes and burdens that net zero is placing on those businesses, and are doing everything we can to mitigate them as we try to deliver that target.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Like all of my colleagues, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and very much welcome her focus on the balance of trade. We do not talk enough about that; we forget that until 1997, this country had a broadly neutral or positive balance of trade, but between 1997 and 2010, that balance went very negative. We have struggled to restore that balance, which has made us dependent on foreign debt and our economy fragile, so I very much welcome these figures—it looks like we are turning the tide.
I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on manufacturing, which has a very important part to play in our balance of trade, but we must not forget about the small manufacturers. She has rightly focused on the larger ones, but nearly 6,000 jobs in my constituency are dependent on export. What help is available from the Government to help smaller manufacturers, which often face more barriers to exporting, to also be part of this excellent recovery?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Through our export strategy, we are doing a lot to provide support for businesses that may not be familiar with exporting or that need additional help. We do that work with our trade commissioners in every region around the world, as well as with international posts.
One thing we have said in the Department for Business and Trade is that this is the year of the small and medium-sized enterprise. Quite a lot of the time, the news that we give is about the big billions for the FTSE 100 companies, but most people who work in this country work for small and medium-sized businesses. That is one reason why we want to reduce the threshold at which they count for the purposes of corporate reporting and regulations, which should make their lives easier and give them fewer barriers to trade. It will help them to improve their exports, as well.
Bill Presented
Russian State Assets and Reconstruction of Ukraine Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rehman Chishti, supported by David Morris, Afzal Khan, Dr Matthew Offord and Henry Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about the seizure, freezing and transfer of Russian state assets; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the use of such assets for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Ukraine, including an assessment of the needs of Ukraine; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 17 May, and to be printed (Bill 211).
Road Traffic (Testing of Blood)
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Road Traffic (Testing of Blood) Bill 2023-24 View all Road Traffic (Testing of Blood) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide that a specimen of blood may be subjected to a laboratory test without the permission of the person from whom it was taken; and for connected purposes.
Since I was elected in 2019, my team and I have dealt with thousands of cases to support my constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. However, no case has been as moving and upsetting, or has had as much of an impact in the community, as the tragic death of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis on 19 June 2021. Sharlotte was out for a walk with her father along Endon Road in Norton Green to get some sweets when she was hit and killed by John Owen, who was two times over the drink-drive limit with class A drugs in his system and speeding while on his phone. The impact on the local community is impossible to overestimate. I know that friends of Sharlotte still fear crossing the road or walking to school by themselves—a milestone that, as any parent knows, is an essential part of growing up—and I know of parents who are so much more concerned about their children going out to play because of the fear that the same thing could happen to their loved ones.
As a father myself, I am humbled every time I work with Sharlotte’s brave and inspirational mother, Claire Reynolds. Although she sadly cannot be with us today as she is recovering from surgery, she has not stopped trying to get justice for her daughter. Claire and I first started working together after John Owen was given a shockingly lenient sentence. The judge, who told Mr Owen that he was
“an accident waiting to happen”,
sentenced him to just six years and four months in prison, where he would only serve two and a half years behind bars. Claire, Sharlotte’s family, and I believe it to be an insult that the criminal who killed Sharlotte would spend less time behind bars than Sharlotte was alive.
However, I pass on my thanks to the Secretary of State for Justice for supporting Claire and I by blocking the ludicrous and affrontive suggestion that John Owen could have been moved to a category D prison after serving just 12 months of his sentence. That would have rubbed more salt into the wounds of all those close to Sharlotte, and I am grateful that that sickening move did not go ahead.
While we were unable to increase John Owen’s sentence, what Claire and I wanted more than anything was to leave a lasting legacy in Sharlotte’s name. We seek to amend section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by introducing Sharlotte’s law. This legislative change has one simple intention: to put victims of road traffic incidents and their families first. Under the current legislation, blood samples can be taken without consent when someone is unconscious and has been involved in a fatal collision. However, those blood samples are not allowed to be tested unless that individual gives their consent. That not only delays the conduct of the police investigation, but more importantly, it prolongs the pain for victims who are desperately seeking answers. Claire told me that her experience was like torture: for eleven weeks, the family waited, not knowing whether John Owen would wake up and be held accountable for his crimes, nor when they would get answers about what led to Sharlotte’s life being taken.
To add further confusion, if an individual regains consciousness but refuses consent for the blood sample to be tested, they will be guilty of failing to allow testing and will receive up to two years in prison. However, if that individual has taken substances or consumed alcohol to a certain limit that would act as a more serious aggravating factor and could increase their sentence beyond that additional two years, we could perversely end up with testing of blood samples being refused so that the accused could try to get a lesser sentence.
Simply put, this Bill seeks to achieve a tidying up of the law, enabling answers to be gathered by the police much more quickly, avoiding potential evidence becoming contaminated and giving answers to the victims by stating in law that, once a blood sample is taken, it can be tested. This seems particularly uncontroversial, especially as the most intrusive part of this process—the blood sample being taken—is already legal.
Claire has been so brave and courageous since her daughter passed away, and it is a testament to her selflessness, strength and resilience that, in spite of all that has happened, she is prepared to fight for justice and ensure that no other family experiences the same fate as hers. The petition supporting Sharlotte’s law has had more than 5,500 signatures. We have received the endorsement of leading drink-driving charities such as Brake, SCARD and the Campaign Against Drink Driving, as well as the unanimous support of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire’s police, fire and crime commissioner, Ben Adams, and The Sentinel newspaper.
Claire and I have met the Lord Chancellor and the former Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to discuss our campaign. I was pleased last week to meet the current Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—who updated me on the upcoming call for evidence and consultation for victims of drink-driving incidents. This is absolutely vital because victims of these tragic cases need to be able to explain how it feels when the law is working against them.
However, having been informed late last year that this process would be starting imminently, I urge the Minister to provide a specific timeframe for when this will take place. Victims of drink driving incidents need to be prioritised, and this cannot come soon enough. I hope that during the process, when it comes, the Minister and his officials will back Claire and me in our ambition to put victims first, and to change to section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to introduce Sharlotte’s law.
Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to praise the hard work of Councillors Dave Evans and Carl Edwards, as well as the Norton Green Residents Association, who have relentlessly campaigned since this very tragic accident for new measures to slow down traffic along Endon Road to keep residents safe.
I am extremely proud that this Bill has the support of Members from across the House. This place always works far better when we work together, and I want to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who are backing this important legislation. This law is imperative. The trauma and torture of losing a loved one is impossible to imagine, let alone when it then appears that the law is blocking someone’s hope for justice. I want to see this legislation changed for Sharlotte and other victims of these heinous crimes, so that when their families, friends and communities go through untold grief, they can have confidence that the legal system will protect and support them, not the monsters who get behind a wheel with no thought for anyone else.
More than anything, Claire Reynolds, who saw the murderer who killed her six-year-old daughter put away for just two years after going through eleven weeks of pain in not knowing what put him behind the wheel on that day, deserves to see the law changed so that no family suffers as hers did. If anything, her selflessness deserves it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Priti Patel, Sir Brandon Lewis, Dame Karen Bradley, Jack Brereton, Jo Gideon, Sarah Champion, Jim Shannon, Andy McDonald, Lee Anderson, Cat Smith, James Wild and Jonathan Gullis present the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 210).
Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Act 2024 View all Automated Vehicles Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 1 May 2024 - large print - (1 May 2024)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to personal data—
“Before making regulations under section 42 of this Act (Protection of information), or any other regulations or requirements in relation to the provision of personal data in automated vehicles, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult the ICO before making regulations in relation to the provision of personal data relevant to automated vehicles.
New clause 3—Establishment of an Advisory Council—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a council to advise on the implementation of this Act, with a focus on learning lessons from any accidents involving automated vehicles.
(2) The Advisory Council must include representatives from—
(a) consumer groups;
(b) organisations representing drivers;
(c) road safety experts;
(d) relevant businesses such as automobile manufacturers, vehicle insurance providers and providers of delivery and public transport services;
(e) trade unions;
(f) the police and other emergency services, including Scottish and Welsh emergency services;
(g) highway authorities, including Scottish and Welsh highway authorities;
(h) groups representing people with disabilities;
(i) groups representing other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists; and
(j) groups representing the interests of relevant employees including delivery providers, those involved of likely to be involved in the manufacture of automated vehicles, emergency service workers, and public transport workers.
(3) The Secretary of State must designate a relevant officer of the Department to send reports to the Advisory Council on the roll out of self driving vehicles and any issues of public policy that arise.
(4) The Advisory Council must include nominated representatives of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.
(5) The Advisory Council must report regularly to—
(a) Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament,
(c) Senedd Cymru
on the advice it has provided, and any related matters relevant to the roll out of self driving vehicles and associated public policy.”
New clause 4—Accessibility information for passengers in automated vehicles—
“After section 181D of the Equality Act 2010, insert—
‘Chapter 2B
Automated vehicles providing automated passenger services
181E Information for passengers in automated passenger services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring providers or operators of automated passenger services to make available information about a service to persons travelling on the service.
(2) The regulations may make provision about—
(a) the descriptions of information that are to be made available;
(b) how information is to be made available.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, require a provider or operator of an automated passenger service to make available information of a prescribed description about—
(a) the name or other designation of the service;
(b) the direction of travel;
(c) stopping places;
(d) diversions;
(e) connecting local services.
(4) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) specify when information of a prescribed description is to be made available;
(b) specify how information of a prescribed description is to be made available, including requiring information to be both announced and displayed;
(c) specify standards for the provision of information, including standards based on an announcement being audible or a display being visible to a person of a prescribed description in a prescribed location;
(d) specify forms of communication that are not to be regarded as satisfying a requirement to make information available.
(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—
(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;
(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.
(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers;
(b) the Scottish Ministers.’”
This new clause mirrors existing provisions in the Equality Act 2010 relating to the provision of information in accessible formats to bus passengers and applies them to automated passenger services.
New clause 5—Publication of list of information to be provided—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the publication of a list detailing—
(a) the information related to the data for authorisation of automated vehicles which must be provided;
(b) the parties by whom such information must be provided;
(c) the parties to whom such information must be provided; and
(d) the purposes for which the information must be provided.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for the content of the list to be subject to public consultation.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a list of information which is to be provided to and by certain parties on the operation of authorised automated vehicles, and to hold a public consultation on the list.
New clause 6—Liability of insurers—
“Section 2 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (liability of insurers etc where accident caused by automated vehicle) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), leave out “when driving itself”;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “when driving itself”.”
This new clause would remove the need for people to have to prove that an automated vehicle was “driving itself” if they make a legal claim for compensation under Section 2 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) A person may not be an authorised self-driving entity unless they meet the following requirements—
(a) they have obtained a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the Information Commissioner’s Office for their policy in regard to the handling of personal data,
(b) their policy in regard to the handling of personal data clearly outlines who has ownership of any personal data collected, including after the ownership of a vehicle has ended, and
(c) they are a signatory to an industry code of conduct under the UK General Data Protection Regulation.”
This amendment seeks to probe a number of concerns around data protection and ownership and seeks to prevent authorisation of companies as self-driving entities unless robust personal data practices are in place.
Government amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 6, in clause 50, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Scottish Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must obtain and lay before Parliament the written consent of the Welsh Government to make regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,
(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.
Amendment 7, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government before making regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) any instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Government before making regulations under this section which amend—
(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,
(b) any instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the devolved governments before exercising the Clause 50 power in relation to devolved legislation.
Government amendments 3 to 5.
Wera Hobhouse
I have tabled three amendments that seek to strengthen the provisions made for data protection in the Bill. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the collection of personal data from automated vehicles within one year of the day on which the Act is passed and every year thereafter. This report must cover
“levels of compliance with data protection legislation within the automated motor industry,…instances where the Secretary of State has made regulations under section 42(3) of this Act…and the impact of those regulations on personal data protection, and…any significant trends in the collection of personal data and whether further action is needed to regulate the collection of personal data.”
For sustained public confidence in automated vehicles and the data protection issues that arise, it is important that we have this continued monitoring and reporting. With a new technology, it is inevitable that new issues will arise over time, particularly as automated vehicles learn and change their behaviour accordingly. The reporting is necessary to keep the regulations on data protection under review as the technology develops. The Government must give further assurances in the Bill that people’s personal data will be protected before this Bill becomes law and commit to the annual reporting set out in this new clause.
This Bill would also be strengthened by new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before making regulations in relation to the provision of personal data relevant to automated vehicles. As I have mentioned, new clause 1 would maintain monitoring of the provisions made for data protection, and new clause 2 would make this monitoring and reporting process easier, as advice can be taken from the ICO rather than using parliamentary time. Again, this will instil public confidence in the legislation as the advice will come from an independent body.
In order to operate, automated vehicles must be able to collect data, and much of this data will be personal. The information collected will help to make AVs safer as the system learns more about the road and those using it. Strengthening the process of how any changes to future protections are made will again assure the public that their personal data will be secure. Further assurances would be given by amendment 8, which seeks to probe a number of concerns about data protection and ownership, and seeks to prevent the authorisation of companies as self-driving entities unless robust data practices are in place. This amendment would ensure that a person may not be an authorised self-driving entity unless they meet the following requirements:
“they have obtained a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the Information Commissioner’s Office for their policy in regard to the handling of personal data,…their policy in regard to the handling of personal data clearly outlines who has ownership of any personal data collected, including after the ownership of a vehicle has ended, and…they are a signatory to an industry code of conduct under the UK General Data Protection Regulation.”
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I would be very interested, with regard to the latter new clause, if the hon. Lady could explain why she feels—or what feedback or evidence she has to think—that the safety regulation system that is put in place will be inadequate to handle the concerns she raises.
Wera Hobhouse
On Second Reading, I think I was very positive about the Bill’s introduction, and I see it as the bright new future, but we should be careful to ensure we are taking people with us. As I have said, this is basically about making sure that people feel confident that their personal data is really handled in the most secure way possible. I have tabled the amendments to provide assurance for the public that the Government and everybody involved in this bright new future will really take a very careful look at all data protection measures.
Jesse Norman
If I may quickly respond, given that this Bill has had a remarkably untroubled passage through both Houses to date and that both Houses are informed by enormous amounts of information from relevant parties and Members’ constituents, has she any such reason? I think what she is saying is that she has no reason, apart from a general worry about consent, to think that what she is talking about will be necessary, because she has no reason to think that the regulator will not be able to take this stuff into account when it comes to a review?
Wera Hobhouse
We will not push new clause 1 to a vote, but I want the Government to ensure that all necessary and possible protections are being put in place. This issue has been debated several times, but we are looking into the future and who knows what the future holds? We know that people are increasingly worried about their personal data, and that sometimes regulations are not as robust as possible. This is basically a plea to the Government to ensure that all possible assurances are in place.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I rise in support of new clauses 1 and 3, which are based on measures that we tabled in Committee. I will also speak to amendments 6 and 7 that stand in my name and those of colleagues in Plaid Cymru, but I will not detain the House too long as it is clear that there is broad agreement on the wider principles of the Bill and the implications of the details in it, notwithstanding the amendments. As a member of the Transport Committee, it has been clear to me for some time that this framework legislation is required. By and large the Government have done a good job, with the sector largely content and no real opposition in this place to the vast majority of the Bill—[Interruption.] Okay, I will change that to “a decent job”; the Minister was too grateful.
That said, I must return to the issues around clause 50, which gives the Secretary of State power to legislate on devolved matters. That may not be the Bill’s intention, but the possibility remains a concern. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the problems with clause 50. In the end, the meeting came after Committee stage had concluded. That was disappointing, but it was a reflection of the wild agreement and consent on all sides for the vast majority of the Bill, resulting in an extremely swift conclusion to the Committee. The Scottish Government and their Ministers and officials have been engaged with the UK Government and their Ministers and officials on at least two occasions to discuss the implications for devolution of clause 50, and the proper remit of both Governments. In Committee, the Minister was forthcoming about discussing matters further with the Scottish Government, and I thank him for that. I believe those discussions have taken place.
It would be helpful if the Minister gave a commitment on the record on the Floor of the House that the Scottish and Welsh Governments will be consulted fully before the relevant powers in clause 50 are used by the Secretary of State. That being the case, would it not make more sense for the Government to accept amendment 7, because that is all it seeks? The fact remains that it would be infinitely preferable to have a statutory basis for the changes that the UK Government propose to make, and one that respects and acknowledges the legal framework that exists under devolution.
In Committee, the Minister maintained the line that the legal advice he and his Government have received indicates that these matters are all reserved, but the Scottish Government are clear that their similar advice indicates that the matters are devolved. My amendment would simply reflect the legal position as understood by the Scottish Government and outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee last month. She said that
“things that relate to offences under devolved legislation and offences that would be part of devolved areas, these are the areas that the provision would allow the UK Government to legislate on or make provision for in the future...we think it’s a genuine issue of concern.”
In the same session, George Henry, national operations manager for road safety policy and education for Transport Scotland, said:
“I will just try to provide an explanation or an example. There will be devolved legislation that has been brought in either by roads authorities or even through the Scottish Parliament that clause 50 allows the Secretary of State to change. That is the reason why we are not supportive of that. This Parliament—”
that is the Scottish Parliament—
“could make a decision to implement a measure for good reasons—such as a low-emission zone in an area—that could potentially be changed through clause 50.”
Whether or not that is the intention, it gives the Secretary of State the power to do that.
I hope it is clear to the UK Government that this is not an issue of confected conflict—something we are often falsely accused of—and there is clearly a desire to make the Bill work. Equally, however, we need it to work for everyone, including the devolved Administrations. As I highlighted in Committee, if the Government’s objective is to ensure complete alignment between Scottish and English traffic laws, that ship sailed a long time ago. We have a different speed limit regime, different drink-driving laws, and a different approach to road traffic regulation in general. Wales, too, has indicated different priorities to England by, at least initially, rolling out a national 20 mph speed limit. Clearly there should be consistency across the island, where appropriate, about the basic framework under which automated vehicles will operate, and the devolved Administrations have worked with their UK counterparts to make that happen. However, that cannot be allowed to undermine the devolved position with regard to enforcement of the law where the Bill will affect devolved law.
The Minister has been forthcoming with me, including in Committee, about his commitment to constructive discussion with the devolved Administrations, and I welcome that again. However, with the greatest of respect for him, in around six months we are expecting a change of Government and he will likely no longer be there, and whatever pledges or commitments have been made cannot bind his successors. We need a commitment in legislation that it would take an Act in this place to amend or scrap.
Amendment 6 would ensure that where devolved competences, such as those referred to in clause 50, are at stake, the devolved Parliaments are guaranteed their role as the providers or otherwise of legislative consent for this Parliament to legislate on their behalf, as has been the accepted norm for devolved matters under the Sewel convention for nearly 25 years.
Amendment 7 would in essence codify the pledges made by the Minister in Committee about consulting the Scottish Government. That is good, and I wait to hear his response to the debate. However, I believe a better solution with respect to devolution is amendment 6, which would require a legislative consent motion to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, and indeed the Welsh Senedd, before a UK Minister could act, rather than just a consultation.
I do not think that is particularly controversial. If there are such disparate views from legal advisers about where the line of devolved powers lies, surely the UK Government, as a self-proclaimed champion of devolution, would be happy to codify exactly where that line lies, and guarantee the Scottish Government and Parliament, of whatever political hue, the right to determine their own laws and regulations around automated vehicles now and in the future. I will wait to see what representations the Minister makes in his remarks before deciding whether to push amendment 6 or 7 to the vote.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Labour has tabled four amendments at this stage of proceedings to build on the work in Committee. The context of the amendments is that the Bill follows four years of work by the Law Commission, which included three public consultations, and the commission’s recommendations represent one of the most thorough pieces of work that it has ever carried out.
The Bill builds on and provides further clarity to the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which originally set out the insurance framework for automated vehicles. It was the first piece of legislation to set out an insurance framework for the operation of automated vehicles.
The Transport Committee published a report on self-driving vehicles in 2023, and its recommendations included a new legal framework in primary legislation. The development of automated vehicles has a number of potential benefits, and after losing our place as a leader in the development of the technology, the Bill can play its part in recovering Britain’s international position and establishing one of the most robust frameworks for AVs in the world. Let us remind ourselves of some of the potential benefits.
Automated vehicles could create a market worth £42 billion by 2035, and 38,000 new jobs. They have the potential to make roads safer, including for pedestrians and cyclists, by removing the human error that causes 88% of road traffic incidents. Research from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders suggests that if automated vehicles are deployed in substantial numbers, 3,900 lives could be saved and 60,000 serious incidents prevented up to 2040. Better road safety also means significant savings for the NHS. Research by AXA shows that in 2022, road traffic incidents cost the economy £42 billion, of which £2.3 billion was a direct cost to the NHS in medical treatment and ambulance services.
AVs can improve connectivity in areas where our public transport is failing passengers. However, such an improvement needs to be made alongside long-overdue improvements in bus services rather than seen in isolation. Better access to transport is important for a great many people, including in rural areas, for older people and for disabled people. An Age UK study found that driving remains the most common form of transport for older people.
Most US states, Germany and France are moving forward with their own AV frameworks, so it would be a mistake for the UK to fall further behind in an industry that could be worth £750 billion globally by 2035. The UK is already running numerous automated vehicle programmes, including those by Wayve, Oxa and Starship.
Let us consider where we are with the legislation in front of us and how we might build on the Bill. Labour’s four amendments cover the following issues: the establishment of an advisory council; the accessibility format required of automated vehicles if used as public transport; the requirement for the publication of a list of data required to be supplied; and removing the need for people injured by an automated vehicle to prove that the vehicle was driving itself if they make a legal claim for compensation.
Let us start with new clause 3. In Committee, the Minister said—multiple times, in fact—that he is in agreement on the need for proper consultation, and he insisted that the Government will consult properly. However, there appears to be something of a gap between the Government’s stated commitment to consultation and what is happening in practice. For example, Government guidelines on minimum engagement for AV trials do not currently specify that disabled people’s organisations need to be consulted. If the Minister agrees on the importance of consultation, why is that not stated in the Bill?
Jesse Norman
If I may say so, that is a remarkably weak criticism. As the hon. Member acknowledges, the Bill has been developed—I say this with a degree of ownership—over a considerable period of time, with enormous input from involved parties. It is obviously of direct relevance to older people, people with difficulty with mobility and people with disabilities. The suggestion that somehow the Government have, by implication, neglected those constituencies is wholly mistaken.
Bill Esterson
I will give the right hon. Member credit for his role in getting the Bill to this stage, and he is quite right that the Bill largely has strong support on both sides of the aisle and across society. I think it does set the framework, but there are concerns about it, and this is one of them. I will further set out the evidence base for that, but before I do, I turn to the impact of deindustrialisation and its legacy of inequality, which has been sown into the fabric of our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
I thank the Opposition parties for their broadly positive approach throughout Second Reading and Committee. There is clear consensus across the House that we should embrace this new technology, given all the opportunities set out by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). As has been mentioned, he helped steer the legislation through this place, and clearly still has great interest in the Bill, which I welcome.
I will be brief. All the new clauses and amendments apart from one were raised in identical form in Committee, and my comments will not change much from what I said then. By and large, we agree with their various objectives, but we do not think they are necessary, and in a couple of cases we think they are inappropriate. On new clauses 1, 2, 5 and 8, data protection is clearly very important, and the Government support it, but the new clauses largely duplicate measures that are already in the Bill, or in other legislation.
This Government take protection of personal data very seriously. It is an important issue and requires careful consideration. The Bill does not seek to replace or change personal data protection legislation, nor does it enable that legislation to be contravened. It is not a Bill about data protection. Any changes to data protection legislation are beyond the scope of the Bill. It is the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office to regulate data protection issues. The ICO has an obligation to report annually to Parliament on the commissioner’s activities. Any report by the Department for Transport, such as that required by new clause 1, would risk duplicating that work. Also, the Department for Transport is not the data controller of information collected by regulated bodies, which means that reporting would be inappropriate.
The purpose of the Bill is to create a comprehensive and effective safety framework for self-driving vehicles. Information may need to be shared to achieve that; public safety and security must come first. Any regulations made under the powers in the Bill that permit further sharing or use of information would be developed in discussion with stakeholders and subject to consultation, and would be laid before the House before coming into force. That provides multiple opportunities for input into and scrutiny of proposals. Regulations will also be subject to a data protection impact assessment. The Secretary of State already has a duty under article 36(4) of the General Data Protection Regulation to consult the ICO on proposals for legislative measures. New clause 2 therefore duplicates a requirement already in law.
New clause 5 is unnecessary because all information-related regulations made under the powers in the Bill will already be subject to consultation under the requirements of clause 97. Clause 14 specifically requires that regulations that require information to be shared by an authorised self-driving entity or licensed operator must specify the purpose for which that data is to be shared. It would be unnecessary and onerous to duplicate those publication and consultation requirements.
Turning to amendment 8, the protection of personal data will be considered alongside the detailed development of authorisation requirements. These requirements will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to consultation and impact assessment. The amendment would place an additional burden on industry over and above what is required under existing data protection legislation, such as the legislation that covers the data in our mobile phones. At present, a certificate of compliance is not mandatory under GDPR. In addition, the schemes referred to in the amendment are industry-led and therefore not within the control of Government, so there is a risk that they would not achieve the intended result.
On new clause 3, the hon. Member for Sefton Central talked at length about the inadequacies of Government consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, there has been incredibly extensive consultation throughout this process. I have counted five different ways in which we will ensure consultation and engagement. The Law Commissions of England, Wales and Scotland have been looking at the issue for four years, and have been consulting throughout. The Secretary of State for Transport, who has joined us in the Chamber, and I held a roundtable with a whole range of road user groups, including groups representing disabled people, about the impact of the legislation. I will also meet disabled groups once the legislation moves through this House to consider some of the issues. We recognise that engagement with all groups, including the devolved Administrations, is incredibly important. The Bill will provide new powers relating to technical safety requirements, which will be set out in statutory guidance and secondary regulation. There will be consultation on those requirements with stakeholders, including but not limited to the stakeholders identified clause 2(4).
Following the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, we have included a statutory requirement to consult the three groups with the most direct interest when developing the statement of safety principles: road safety groups, road user groups and the self-driving vehicle industry. That is not a comprehensive list of those likely to be consulted, but it shows the breadth of the consultation. Once in place, the safety requirements for authorisation, licensing and in-use regulation will be monitored and enforced by the Department for Transport and its motoring agencies, on behalf of the Secretary of State. In line with all public bodies, the Department and its agencies will be subject to scrutiny.
In addition, there is an expert advisory panel on the Department’s self-driving vehicle safety assurance work, which has been consulted. It provides advice and challenge. The panel includes representatives from industry, academia and road safety groups. We have given a non-statutory commitment to setting up an accessibility advisory panel. The Bill establishes a new independent no-blame incident investigation capability, which will ensure that we learn effectively from incidents that involve self-driving vehicles. Finally, the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be reassured to learn that clause 38 already creates a general monitoring duty that requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of self-driving vehicles. I hope that all those engagements that I have made demonstrate that the Government share the hon. Member’s view that scrutiny of implementation and learning from experience are vital. All those future engagements are there, which is why new clause 3 is not necessary.
On new clause 4, accessibility is an incredibly important issue. I have made it clear, as has the Secretary of State, that accessibility is one of the strong arguments for legislating for self-driving cars. For many disabled people, particularly partially sighted or blind people, self-driving cars could have an incredible impact on their quality of life. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for the new clause, but it replicates powers held by the Secretary of State on the provision of accessible travel information about buses to automated passenger services. Automated passenger services provide a great opportunity to make travel more accessible and inclusive. Under the Bill, we already have the power to mandate that information be provided to users in accessible formats, through the permit conditions. That is more flexible tool than the regulations. Conditions attached to individual permits can be adapted to fit a wide variety of services. Some services may have alternatives to the provision of accessible-format information; for example, there may be a member of staff in a vehicle who can focus entirely on helping passengers and providing that information. In addition, the Bill expressly requires the appropriate national authority to consider accessibility in decisions to grant permits. That ensures that accessibility considerations are built into services from the start. It enables innovation to come forward in this nascent sector, and operators to consider the best way for their services to be accessible and inclusive. Finally, licensing and franchising authorities will also be able to steer requirements about accessible information formats. They can champion local needs through their role in providing consent for granting permits. As a result, we do not think that new clause 4 is necessary.
New clause 6 extends insurer first-instance liability for incidents involving automated vehicles to all circumstances, even when an individual is driving. The compulsory insurance regime in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 was created to ensure that victims of incidents caused by automated vehicles receive prompt compensation. The Bill amends the 2018 Act to ensure it applies to authorised automated vehicles. However, there is no change to the principle that insurer first-instance liability applies only when the self-driving feature is switched on. New clause 6 would create an unnecessary discrepancy in insurer liabilities for manual driving, depending on whether the vehicle has a self-driving feature or not. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw new clause 6.
On the SNP amendments relating to clause 50, we consider that the user-in-charge immunity is a reserved matter. Indeed, the immunity will predominantly affect the application of reserved traffic offences, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) recognised. There is a limited range of devolved legislation in this area and immunity will have only a minor incidental impact on the Bill. We did meet to talk about it and we discussed it in Committee, but just to make it absolutely clear, this is not about what the traffic regulations are in Scotland—what the speed limit is, whether it is an offence to break the speed limit or drive in a bus lane. It is about whether liability rests on the driver or on the software company ASDE in a self-driving car. It therefore has no impact on direct legislation in Scotland.
More generally, public understanding and confidence will be key to realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles. It is vital that we have clarity and consistency across Great Britain about how these vehicles can be used, and what individuals’ responsibilities are. This was the first recommendation by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales in their joint report. They stated that they did not think the public would be able to understand different or partial immunities based on distinctions between devolved and reserved laws. The power in clause 50 is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the immunity’s application.
As the hon. Member acknowledged, I met him and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government to talk about that. I sent a letter of assurance afterwards and I repeat what I mentioned in that letter. I assure him that where we propose to use the regulation-making power in clause 50, we will always consult with the Scottish Government and with other devolved Administrations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I understand that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) wishes to withdraw new clause 1. Is that correct?
Wera Hobhouse
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43
Fees
Amendments made: 1, page 29, line 19, after “State” insert “or by a traffic commissioner”.
This amendment corrects a drafting omission, by allowing no-user-in-charge operator licensing functions conferred on traffic commissioners to be taken into account in setting fees under Part 1.
Amendment 2, page 29, line 22, at end insert—
“(3) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under section 13 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.
Clause 89
Procedural and administrative matters
Amendment made: 3, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers—
(a) if they apply to a function in respect of which a fee is payable, must also apply to the function of charging and receiving that fee;
(b) if they apply to the function of issuing a notice under paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 (compliance notices and monetary penalty notices), must also apply to the functions under paragraph 4 of that Schedule (costs notices) so far as exercisable in connection with the first function.
(9) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under subsection (7) must, unless subsection (10) applies, be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
(10) Money received by a traffic commissioner under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 (monetary penalties) as a result of regulations under subsection (7) made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers must be paid to those Ministers.”—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment makes provision about fees, penalties and costs made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations under Part 5.
Schedule 1
Enforcement action under Part 1: procedure
Amendments made: 4, page 78, line 7, after “Part” insert “(other than section 43(1))”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.
Amendment 5, page 78, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) Money received by a traffic commissioner as a result of regulations under this paragraph must be paid into the Consolidated Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.”—(Anthony Browne.)
This amendment is one of two that clarify what happens to fees, penalties or costs under Part 1 if they are made payable to traffic commissioners by regulations.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I was going to say a number of things, but the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) covered them in his response. I will resist the temptation, which is not often resisted, to repeat them. All I will do by way of my remarks is say a few thank yous.
We are debating a Bill to have self-driving vehicles, but since we have not yet reached the point where we have self-driving Bills, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his work in steering the Bill not just on Report today but through Committee. I thank the Chairs and the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work both in Committee and in taking evidence. I also want to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House, even where there are differences on some of the detail, for their overall support for the Bill.
The Bill is part of our strategy to ensure Britain is at the forefront of this exciting new technology; to ensure that we can create well-paid, secure jobs in this country and lead this industry; and to ensure that we have safer roads, with technology which will contribute to an improvement in road safety and continue Britain’s leadership in that position.
I am grateful for the support of colleagues and hope the Bill will be read a Third time without a Division.
Bill Esterson
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State about the desirability of the Bill. We have had a very good series of discussions on it. I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has engaged with all Members who took part in Committee and the other stages. I add my thanks on the record to the Clerks, the Law Commission, those who submitted written evidence and the Minister for his responses, through letters, after the Committee stage. I agree on the benefits of improving road safety and the potential economic opportunities that the introduction of automated vehicles provides. We look forward to the rest of the transport legislation coming forward, in however many weeks the current Government may have, on e-scooters, e-bikes and minimum standards for taxis in the transport Bill that they previously promised. But today we can agree that the Bill should get its Third Reading and I am grateful to all who took part in its consideration.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Clerks, the Chairs, the members of the Public Bill Committee and all those who submitted evidence to it. As the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, the engagement by the Minister has been excellent. I will be keeping a close eye on the Minister—and indeed his Secretary of State, who has come in at the last minute to steal his thunder on Third Reading!—to ensure that the commitments made specifically with regard to clause 50 are met. If they are not, they will be hearing from me. [Laughter.]
Jesse Norman
May I say that, very far from the sentiments just expressed, the Secretary of State has been a very strong friend to the Bill from the very beginning? Having steered the Bill until the point where the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) took over, as he noted, I pay tribute, as he has, to the quality of the work done by officials at the Department for Transport and the Bill team. I remind the House that this is an extraordinary moment. We have taken the next step in pioneering a technology, as a single polity, in advance of anywhere else. It builds on the work done in 2019, and presages a very important, safer and, in many respects in transport terms, more prosperous future.
Wera Hobhouse
I add my thanks to everybody who worked so hard to bring the Bill forward. As I have said before, the Liberal Democrats have been very supportive. This is a brave new world and I assume that, as we go along exploring the new technology, we will keep a very close eye on the data protection issues that I raised. This is not the end of the road; it is the beginning, but it is an exciting beginning.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
UK Trade: Aviation
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on the importance of aviation to UK trade and to the future of our nation’s economy more generally. Let me start by declaring my interest as the founder and current chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation.
I believe that aviation is a strategic enabler of the kind of export-led, high-growth economy that Members on both sides of the House want to see. Research being prepared by Manchester Airports Group and WPI Economics, of which I have been given advance sight, shows not only the potential for the UK to become a services sector superpower but the way in which we, as an island trading nation, are disproportionately reliant on aviation in comparison with similar economies. My argument this afternoon is that we should recognise that the UK aviation network—the third largest in the world—is a vital asset and a key component in the economy that we are seeking to build further, and that we therefore need the right kind of supportive policy environment to help it to flourish. That includes leaning into the benefits and opportunities on offer from decarbonising aviation for the sake of environmental protection, going faster and further than other countries precisely because of how much we have to gain economically from the sector, including the great British exporting businesses that rely on aviation for their own success.
Figures published recently by the Office for National Statistics show a 63% real-terms growth in the export of services in the 14 years to the end of 2023. As for goods, the UK air freight contribution across all sectors of the economy is more than £87 billion.
Against that backdrop and given that the UK is already the second largest exporter of services after the United States, respected think-tanks such as the Resolution Foundation are saying that the path to transformative economic growth for the country lies in its becoming a services sector superpower, and striking up new services trade agreements with countries such as Singapore, Japan and Australia.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The World Bank recently conducted a survey in which it looked at the future of world trade. It said that services were the area in which trade was mostly likely to grow and that Britain was very well placed to take advantage of that, especially in the light of all the trade deals that we are doing.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The United Kingdom has a strong record of being a services economy, and we could go still further now that we have left the European Union and are realising those trade deals, both trans-Pacific and involving other parts of the globe.
The UK should be selling more high-value services in areas such as banking and architecture, in which we have a competitive advantage, to boost productivity and tax revenues and raise the trend rate of growth. In the light of that, Manchester Airports Group has commissioned WPI Economics to study the export growth potential of key sectors such as technology and financial and professional services, in which—as my hon. Friend has just pointed out—we clearly have great strengths. Given the UK’s status as an island trading nation and our distance from some of the key export markets that we need to target, the research is also exploring the importance of aviation and international connectivity to the growth and trade prospects of British businesses in those sectors. The research findings will be published later this month and its publication will be marked by an event here in Parliament, but I am pleased to be able to share a few of the key headlines with the House today.
The sectors in the economy that are most reliant on air travel, from real estate to finance and insurance, create or induce some £1.5 trillion of gross value added—or economic contribution—for the United Kingdom. Key growth sectors of vital importance to the economy and reliant on air travel, such as financial services, creative industries and real estate, are projected to grow by 54%, 25% and 54% respectively in the period to 2033. In 2023 the UK was ranked fourth out of 132 countries in the global innovation index, and the researchers have found that innovation and international connectivity are positively correlated. If the UK wants to grow an innovation-based economy with a concentration of knowledge-intensive industries, it must maintain and grow its direct connections with the outside world. The UK has been ranked fourth in the global knowledge index—the global economy would lose almost 1% of GDP were the UK not to send business travellers abroad—and in respect of the total value of exports, adding more than £900 billion to the British economy and supporting hundreds of thousands of UK businesses.
Having more direct flights from the UK regions to international destinations could help to boost investment, trade, tourism and education opportunities as local businesses seek to leverage the additional connectivity at their disposal. In the north of England, for example, that could play a supportive role in the Government’s levelling-up policy. As for London and south-east England, Gatwick airport’s northern runway proposals would support more long-haul services, enabling increased volumes of cargo and services trade to and from key destinations such as north America, the middle east and Asia. London’s Heathrow airport accounted for more than £200 billion in UK trade passing through in 2022, delivering a positive trade balance of more than £300 billion.
Businesses in these sectors have been interviewed and have set out the role that international connectivity plays, and will continue to play, across a range of key activities: securing investment, clinching deals, building, maintaining and inspecting global supply chains, and promoting knowledge transfer. If we accept that business travel and a healthy, growing aviation sector are preconditions for the type of services-led economic growth that experts say the country should be going after, we need to be clear-eyed about the No. 1 strategic challenge that it faces, namely the achievement of net zero in carbon emissions by 2050 that is the Government’s ambition.
As the UK is disproportionately reliant on aviation to support growth, given its status as an island nation, we should lean into the economic benefits available from its decarbonisation, going further and faster than other countries. The key technology to decarbonise aviation in the medium term is SAF, or sustainable aviation fuels, which can reduce lifecycle emissions by 70% in comparison with conventional jet fuel. The choice for this country is between importing SAF from other countries to decarbonise UK aviation and reach net zero by 2050 and investing in our own domestic sector, which provides a secure, home-grown supply of low-carbon jet fuel to build resilience into the economy and generate thousands of skilled jobs in the process. If we end up importing SAF, we will be at the mercy of volatile international energy markets and, in the event of global scarcity of supply, it will push up airfares, which in turn will push up the cost of doing business for precisely those companies identified in the research I referred to—companies that UK business needs to be travelling and exporting more to grow our economy.
It has to be said that last week the Government made a very positive announcement about measures concerning SAF. First, they are enshrining a sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which means that 10% of all jet fuel needs to come from low-carbon fuels by 2030. Secondly, they are consulting on a revenue certainty mechanism, which could help to incentivise and encourage the building of SAF plants and infrastructure here in the UK. However, a wider package of policy support is needed to create the right environment for this industry to take off, and for the UK to become a global leader. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ waste hierarchy needs to be amended to secure domestic—or “black bin bag”—waste as a viable feedstock or input into making sustainable aviation fuels.
Using household waste to make green jet fuel is not just important because of the way it protects and helps to sustain a strategic enabler in aviation; research from transport sustainability experts ICF shows that using such waste to make SAF, instead of its current use in incineration to produce electricity, would help cut UK carbon emissions too. Indeed, the reduction in carbon emissions would be at least five times greater, not least because nearly half of all electricity in the UK already comes from renewable sources—again, thanks to the great strides that have been made over the last decade by this Government.
A cross-departmental plan is needed across Whitehall to recognise aviation’s role in our make-up as an island trading nation, and in the type of economy we need to grow to become even more competitive. My suggestion to the Minister is that the Department for Business and Trade has a critical role to play in this plan because of the sector’s role in underpinning the success of services exports on which this country’s future prosperity relies.
The UK does not have to choose between growing our economy through international travel, or travelling less and protecting our environment. By innovating and being global leaders in new sustainable aviation fuels technology, we can increase our services and goods sectors, and be at the forefront of new green technologies. We have some iconic British brands that have already demonstrated this. Last November I experienced the first transatlantic flight to use 100% sustainable aviation fuel when Virgin Atlantic, headquartered in my constituency, flew from London Heathrow to John F. Kennedy airport in New York, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines using sustainable aviation fuels. I believe that we should be optimistic about our future economy and our environmental protection, with Britain a global leader in both.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? He has been an extremely persistent advocate of the aerospace industry and Gatwick in all the years I have served with him in Parliament. I am sure that if, after he retires, he goes through all the meetings in his diaries that he had about aviation, his life will whizz past him, because he not only always stands up for the industry, but thinks very carefully about where it needs to go if it is to continue its success, grow and deliver the prosperity that our country needs.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, having gone through covid, many of us wondered whether the aviation industry would bounce back as quickly as it has done. I noticed that Heathrow said the other day that it was busier than it has ever been. The last time I went to Gatwick, I got the same impression—it really is back on four cylinders now.
We are very good at aviation. It is probably one of the legacies of the second world war, when a large amount of our GDP went into fighters, bombers and technology. Post war, we have always punched above our weight in aviation. I was surprised the other day when I saw some figures from the Treasury that showed that half of all airliners sold across the world in an average year have wings made in Wales—of course, Airbus has half the world market. They are very good wings, and they provide some very good jobs. We still have Rolls-Royce punching above its weight and producing innovative engines, many of which are designed to run on new fuels. It means that the company is going to be a major player in future years.
I do not think we will ever have a hub airport in the same way that others do. I have one observation for the Department for Business and Trade: some of the express railways to our airports go very slowly, and more investment in the links between central London and the airports would help the sector substantially. There is a great opportunity there. We have some really good airports circling London, and we have some very good regional airports, including Manchester and others. We have Bournemouth airport in Hurn, which is in the local authority of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. All the airports generate lots of jobs and opportunities, and there is a world of great competition out there. Many other countries are putting in runways and terminals. They see the advantages of investing in aviation, and we have to keep up with them and continue to punch above our weight.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has done for aviation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is going to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Alan Mak)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for introducing this debate, and for his work in establishing and leading the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation. I was glad to hear him refer to the report by Manchester Airports Group and WPI Economics, which have done some important research. I wish them well for the launch of their report. My hon. Friend gave an excellent speech, and he is right on so many counts.
The air transport sector is critical to the UK’s success as a trading nation. Its speed and efficiency gives our exporters the edge and connects this country to the world, enabling the face-to-face meetings that are the lifeblood of our world-leading services sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) rightly highlighted. I entirely agree that the Government must keep striving to ensure that this vital sector thrives and continues to act as an enabler of global trade.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley points out, the world is changing fast. To succeed tomorrow, the UK’s aviation industry needs the right fundamentals in place today. That is why my colleagues at the Department for Transport have developed “Flightpath to the Future”, which is the Government’s 10-point plan to ensure that the UK continues to develop aviation as part of our critical national infrastructure. It is our blueprint to make sure that we have the skills, technology and infrastructure to deliver for aviation over the next 10 years. It will ensure that the UK maximises the benefits of aviation, delivering economic growth, increased trade and improved services for businesses and passengers.
I also highlight that aerospace as a major export is, in its own right, integral to the UK’s achievements as a trading nation, as my hon. Friend rightly said. It adds some £11 billion a year to our economy and employs over 100,000 people across the country. Factories in north Wales, Bristol, Derby, Prestwick and Belfast deliver critical components for the world’s airliners and air freighters. Almost every aircraft that hon. Members have flown on relies on British engineering. I always find it inspiring that roughly half the wings of all new commercial airliners are made in the UK and that a third of global aircraft seats are made in Northern Ireland. Here again, we are striving to ensure that we keep our leading edge and seize the advantages of a jet zero future, which my hon. Friend has so rightly highlighted.
That is why the Government and industry together have created the Aerospace Technology Institute and the ATI programme, delivering long-term and predictable funding that allows industry-led mid-stage R&D projects to get off the ground. The ATI’s objective is simple: grow the UK’s share of the global aerospace market while reducing aviation emissions. The results have been nothing short of transformative. Consequently, the UK’s aerospace industry’s productivity has soared.
Thanks to the ATI co-investment alongside industry, the UK is leading the Airbus Wing of Tomorrow programme, exploring radical new approaches to aircraft wing manufacture and design. We are also powering ahead in the field of engine manufacture, with the world’s most efficient jet engine—the Rolls-Royce UltraFan—on the horizon. The ATI has supported over 400 R&D projects worth £3.6 billion since it was founded, helping some incredible innovations developed by industry disruptors to take flight and attracting foreign investors to these shores, including Boeing and Safran. Given these achievements, it is only right that we continue to strengthen the UK’s position in the global aerospace manufacturing sector, and in the Government’s most recent autumn statement we extended the ATI programme budget for a further five years.
In addition, our jet zero strategy sets out our plan for achieving net zero aviation by 2050. It includes the new aircraft technologies developed in partnership by industry and the ATI programme. There is clearly a bright future ahead. Last year we got a glimpse of this promise—as my hon. Friend mentioned, he got more than a glimpse—when the first net zero flight crossed the Atlantic powered by Rolls-Royce engines and using 100% sustainable aviation fuel.
I turn next to airports, the beating heart of the UK’s trading economy. Already, the UK—and therefore its businesses—boasts the third largest aviation network in the world after the USA and China. As my hon. Friend knows, Gatwick continues to demonstrate incredible innovation with its existing assets, with the busiest and most efficient single runway in the world. I know that there have been various proposals over the years to construct another runway at Gatwick, and I understand that Department for Transport Ministers will be looking carefully at the latest proposal.
All our airports are supported by our world-leading supply chains, which are at the forefront of digital innovations and sustainable technologies when it comes to developing airports ready for the future. For example, NATS, the UK’s air navigation services provider, leads the way in providing next-generation solutions to enhance airport capacity and performance.
I reassure my hon. Friend that my Department fully recognises the importance of airports in underpinning the connectivity that is so vital to trade. We will continue to work closely with other Departments, particularly the Department for Transport, and airport stakeholders to encourage investment into the sector, while supporting our supply chains to export their expertise to the world. I also commend to the House our recent “Future of Flight” action plan, which provides a strategic plan to deliver the economic, environmental and social benefits that could be unlocked by exciting technologies such as drones and electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
I want to thank my hon. Friend again for his work as a passionate advocate for the aviation sector. I reiterate my thanks to him for providing this opportunity to celebrate the achievements of aerospace and aviation in the UK and to discuss how this Government can even better support the sector and our exporters. The Government have a clear vision for the future of aviation in the UK. We see it as a critical enabler of trade long into the future, allowing communities across the country to benefit from the prosperity it brings. From Crawley to Havant, from Poole to Uxbridge via the Hamble Valley and across the entire United Kingdom, the future of aviation is bright. I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership in this sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2023-24 View all Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The selection and grouping list is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, so we will have a single debate on both clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Secure 16 to 19 Academies (funding, impact and consultation)
The Chair
Question proposed, With this, it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to deal with clauses one and two together.
Secure schools are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people, which the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to trialling. Essentially, they will be schools with security rather than prisons with education. The Government have already established secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and the Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.
In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his landmark “Review of the Youth Justice System”. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. He proposed the creation of a new type of custodial environment, one that is focused on the delivery of education and offers children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then. The 2019 Conservative manifesto restated our commitment to trialling the new model. The first secure school is set to open in Medway in Kent this spring, and is to be run by the Oasis Restore trust.
Since the Taylor Report, the Government have been working to create the legislative and regulatory framework that will govern secure schools. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued and we near the opening of the first secure school, this Bill is needed to ensure that specific provisions in the 2010 Act are relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies.
The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure schools, should there be a need to end a funding agreement. The Bill also amends the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will essentially reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, provide for better and more integrated services, and protect the public purse.
With that background in mind, I now turn to the clauses themselves. Clause 1 sets out three main measures. First, it amends section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a funding agreement from seven years to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. Having a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and give them more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. The reduction to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which the Government are committed to funding the school longer than is necessary and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding needed to avoid problems with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in that environment. Although the Government are already able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance, the Bill provides an important “last resort” option to terminate a funding agreement for any other reason.
Secondly, the Bill disapplies section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies, which would otherwise require the Secretary of State to consider the impact on other educational establishments in the area of entering into a new academy funding agreement. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies to ensure that they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different from other schools in the community because they do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have any impact on the viability of local mainstream schools. The Bill therefore disapplies that duty to help any future secure school to open with minimal delay.
Thirdly, the Bill amends section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires an academy provider to consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners; for example, a provider may deem it appropriate to consult elected representatives or health and education services.
Clause 2 establishes that, when enacted, this legislation will extend to England and Wales, but apply only to England, given that the academy system under the 2010 Act has not been adopted in Wales. The clause also establishes that the provisions of the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, the clause establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referred to as the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to voice my wholehearted support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in introducing the Bill. I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her well-known and long-standing commitment to children, both in her professional career as a doctor and in this place. It is perhaps a testament to that commitment that she has been instrumental in bringing forward this small but important piece of legislation. The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham are very lucky to have her as their representative in this place, and long may that continue.
It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their lives around.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my friend, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for introducing this very important Bill. I am also grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention.
I appreciate that the Bill does not apply to Wales, but in Neath, we have Hillside Secure Children’s Home, which is the only home of its type in the UK. We receive children from all over the UK. The children live there, but they are locked up; they receive education and courses, learn social skills and are rewarded for good behaviour and achievements. The period of stay is usually 12 weeks, during which time they turn their lives around, but there is a cliff edge when they are released back into their communities. I have been campaigning since I was elected in May 2015 to secure funding for a step-down unit on the site of Hillside so that these children can live together in a supervised situation, thus avoiding the cliff edge when they go back into their communities and potentially reoffending. Could the Minister please advise me on that?
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Lady. She is right. Even though these specific measures do not apply to Wales, the concept underpinning the secure schools to which this relates is that of education with security, rather than the other way around, and a key part of that is preparing children and young people for release into the community, with the skills and the support to enable them to make a success of their lives. In that context, the hon. Lady highlights a particular issue in Wales, and tempts me to talk about resourcing and funding. I will not stray into that, but I am always happy to have a conversation with her about this, if that would be helpful.
If I may stretch your patience just a little, Mr Hollobone, I shall take this opportunity, given the hon. Member for Neath has intervened, to say I was very sorry to see her announcement that she is standing down from this place at the next election. I have got to know her well over the nine years I have been in this place, and it was a pleasure, during my brief sojourn out of office a couple of years ago, to be able to play a small part in supporting her Shark Fins Act 2023. I wish her well in the future, but I know that it will be a loss to her constituents not to have her in this place.
Secure schools are a landmark reform in youth custody that will help to reduce reoffending and ultimately lead to fewer victims of youth crime, thereby protecting the public. We look forward to opening the first of those, delivering on our 2019 manifesto commitment, very soon. It is an important new development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham highlighted, which has a focus on education with the custodial element alongside it.
For such an important part of our vision for the future of the youth custody estate, it is important that we have proportionate termination measures should there be a need to close a secure school, and that that we have efficient processes in place for opening new schools in the future. The Government have already acted to establish secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and this Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are relevant to the new custodial settings.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister see this as a template for all education in secure settings for the future, or is it an option?
Edward Argar
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware from his time doing my job some years ago that we have within our youth custodial estate young offenders institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. The secure school is a new addition to that. It will be the first of its kind in the country. With that in mind, it is important that we establish this first secure school, see how it works and learn from that experience. If it works, my ambition is to see the concept expanded, subject in the future to any funding or spending review decisions. However, it is important that we learn from the real experience once the school is open before we make any longer term commitments or decisions.
The Government fully support the Bill on the basis that the amendments will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and create better services, thus strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children in our justice system. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer, and have more flexibility should there be need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Although one hopes that will not be necessary, it is prudent and appropriate to have that power in place.
We also have the opportunity to modify consultation requirements that do not apply to secure schools, and therefore help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has highlighted, is a key part of the selection process for any new custodial site. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, facilitating future secure schools should the school prove to be the success that we hope and anticipate it will be. That will ensure a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward the Bill, and I confirm the Government’s full and continued support for it.
Dr Johnson
I thank those who have contributed today, and the Government and the Minister for their support. I thank the hon. Member for Neath for coming along today and for her contribution. As she has in Neath, we have a secure children’s home in Sleaford in my constituency. These homes provide care, support and education to children in a secure environment, many but not all of whom have been placed there by the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is a key part of the criminal justice system, particularly for our youngest people. Extending it to the formal school-based approach for 16 to 19-year-olds in particular will help us to rehabilitate those young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Edward Argar
I will take this opportunity to put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her work on the Bill, to those right hon. and hon. Members who are here today, to you for chairing proceedings, Mr Hollobone, and to the fantastic parliamentary and Bill team at the Ministry of Justice for their work on the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during the sitting, except for the water provided. Would colleagues please forward speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk? My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on all clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
School attendance: general duties on local authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for serving on the Committee. Before going into the detail of the Bill, I will say some thank yous. I thank the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, for his tireless support and for coming to Chelmsford to visit The Boswells School and hear directly from staff and students. I also thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North for ensuring that there is cross-party support for the Bill. At a time when politicians always seem to be arguing with each other, it is great to know that there is actually unanimous support when it comes to looking after our children and ensuring that they go to school.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and members of the Select Committee on Education, as well as the Children’s Commissioner, school heads, children’s and mental health charities and local authority attendance teams, all of whom gave their views, shared their expert experience and supported the measures in the Bill. I also thank the officials in the Department for Education, Anne-Marie Griffiths in the Public Bill Office, and the Clerk, Bethan Harding, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—what would Fridays be without Rebecca?—for all the support I have received up to this point. I also thank Sarah from my office. Today is a busy day in politics, so a huge thank you to all MPs for taking the time and trouble to be here today. Every one of them is here because they care about children.
I will not repeat everything that I said on Second Reading, but I will repeat this: education is key to a child’s future, and for most children school is the best place to be. This is a subject close to my heart, because I want every child to be able to achieve their potential. I want young people to have opportunities. I want them to be able to choose what they do in their future and to have a wide range of choices about whether to continue studying after school and if so, what to study. I want them to have a choice about what jobs or careers they go into.
However, attending school regularly is crucial in giving children those choices. Our children can achieve brilliant things: educational standards have come on in leaps and bounds over the past decade, with children now ranking 11th in the world for maths and 13th for reading. We should be so very proud of our nation’s young people. That is phenomenal progress and we must not let it slip. However, the pandemic has significantly disrupted school attendance levels not just here, but in many countries across the world, with more than one in five pupils in England still missing out on the equivalent of half a day or more of lessons a week. That means that more than 1 million pupils are missing out on significant amounts of their education. It reduces their chances of getting good grades, limits the choices available to them for their future and risks impacting on their longer-term life chances. It also affects their friendships and their chance to take part in enrichment activities, which are so important to their wider wellbeing.
A great deal of work has been done to improve school attendance already. There was the in-depth consultation by the Department for Education, which led to detailed guidance on school attendance being published two years ago, in May 2022. Since presenting the Bill, the Government have already published an updated version of the guidance, which in particular sets out more detail on mental health support and meeting special educational needs. Since Second Reading, the Minister has announced that the guidance will become statutory from 19 August, and I thank him for doing so. Making the guidance statutory is supported by the Children’s Commissioner and the Centre for Social Justice, as well as the Education Committee and many other experts. However, this legislation is still needed, and I welcome the Government’s and Opposition’s support for the Bill. It is a simple but crucial piece of legislation—just two main clauses.
The first clause will place a general duty on local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to promoting regular attendance and reducing absence in their areas. That will help reduce unfairness in the amount of support available for families between areas of the country and level up standards in areas with poorer attendance by providing a consistent approach to support. Local authorities should follow a “support first” approach.
The second clause will help to ensure that schools play their part by requiring them to have a detailed attendance policy. They will be required to publicise that policy so that all parents, pupils and those who work at the school are well aware of its contents. Legally that is achieved by inserting two clauses into the Education Act 1996. Both clauses will require all schools and local authorities to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Local authorities will need to provide all schools with a named point of contact to support queries and advice, meet each school termly to discuss cases where multi-agency support is needed, and work with other agencies to provide support where it is needed in cases of persistent or severe absence. Schools will need to have a named attendance champion and robust day-to-day processes for recording, monitoring and following up on absences. They will need to use their attendance data to follow up with pupils who are persistently and severely absent.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking forward this Bill. As she knows, the Select Committee on Education has long recommended action in this space. Was she as struck as I was by the evidence given yesterday to the Select Committee by Annie Hudson, the chair of the child safeguarding review panel, about the proportion of the cases that she deals with—the most serious cases of things going wrong for children—where children are persistently or severely absent?
Vicky Ford
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee makes an excellent point. Attending school is really important for safeguarding; we hear that again and again. Children who do not attend school are unfortunately much more likely to get drawn into gangs and much more likely to be victims of violence. Attendance has an important protective factor.
Importantly, students and their families will be aware of a school’s attendance policy before they choose their secondary school. Because children often have that choice about which secondary school they go to, they will know what the school expects of them in respect of turning up.
In addressing the issue of school attendance, however, it is really important that we do not simply lay the blame at the door of hard-working parents. The vast majority of parents want their children to do well, but many do not have the help that they need to support their children in fulfilling those aspirations. Some children face specific barriers to school attendance, such as issues with transport or ensuring that a child’s special educational needs are met. That is why the guidance places a great deal of emphasis on early help and multidisciplinary support.
Schools and local authorities will need to work together. Local authorities will need to help schools to remove those barriers to attendance.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to this stage and hopefully on to the statute book with cross-party support. It is a key part of making sure that we bear down on what we know is a key indicator of when children not only fall out of school, but potentially get excluded. That is when we know lots of trouble can start to escalate for them in their lives. So, will she join me in trying to persuade schools and local authorities to embrace the Bill when it gets on the statute book in a way that really does start to reduce the need for exclusion, particularly for the very vulnerable children who might fall out of school and education altogether?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making such an excellent point. This might be the last time I get to thank him for all the work he has done for children during his time in this place, which will be worse off without voices like his championing children. We must make sure that we continue to have champions for children in this place. He makes a really good point about severe and persistent absences, but actually, really small absences can make a difference. The Boswells School, which I visited with the Minister, had looked at the difference between children who had attended between 95% and 100% of the time and children who had attended between 90% and 95% of the time. Those two cohorts were identical in all respects—special educational needs and disabilities, free school meals, and so on. Of the children who had attended 95% to 100% of the time, 82% got the five good GCSEs needed to progress. Of the children who had attended just a bit less—90% to 95% of the time—only 68% got those five good GCSEs plus maths and English. That really whacks their chances of going on to college, so I have written an open letter to all schools in my constituency, setting that out to parents so that they are aware that just that tiny drop in attendance can really affect their child’s life chances.
To conclude, the School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill has the potential to go a long way in tackling the causes of absence from school and removing the barriers to school attendance that some children face. I hope that it will set an example that many other countries follow, and I hope that our nation’s children can rely on all right hon. and hon. Members to support the Bill today.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on bringing forward this legislation. I was very pleased to speak in support of it on Second Reading, because quite simply, children cannot learn at school if they are not in school in the first place. I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but I would like to raise two points where I would welcome comments from the Minister and where it therefore might have been unfair to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
First, placing a statutory duty on local authorities for this register, as the legislation would do, may result in their incurring some additional costs. As Members from across the House will know, local authority budgets are particularly squeezed now, so we need to be extremely careful about adding further burdens. I would welcome anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us about how he will ensure that authorities such as mine, Buckinghamshire Council, will be appropriately supported to be compliant with the proposed legislation.
Secondly, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said about parents, but I am concerned about the pressure being felt by some smaller schools to achieve high attendance in the face of what can be extremely unco-operative and challenging parents. In my constituency, I recently visited a primary school where the senior leadership felt they had no choice but physically to go and collect children from their homes and bring them to school, because the parents were simply refusing to do so. The teachers, the head and the governors were really quite distressed about the impact that that was having on the lives of the teachers doing it, but they were doing it because they were so worried about Ofsted perhaps marking them down if they could not achieve that attendance. I have raised the matter personally with Ofsted. It was very sympathetic to the points that I was raising and it is going to talk to the school directly.
However, the point remains that although the register in this legislation will allow us to record who is absent, we need parents to fulfil their responsibilities, so I should be grateful if the Minister would update the Committee on what steps his Department is taking to encourage that degree of parental responsibility, which is essential. It is not the duty of teachers, or of Government, to supplant parents in instilling the right discipline and the right approach to school in their children.
Overall, I am very happy to support the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. Having brought a Bill through the House myself, I know what hard work it is for an individual Member—not least in making sure that people come to Committee—so I warmly congratulate her on that and I look forward to seeing the Bill clear all of the further legislative process.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill on such an important subject and on making sure that it got to Committee today. The poor attendance rates that we are seeing in schools are at a crisis point. It is something that we all agree must be addressed urgently —I would say by local authorities, schools, families and Government working together on the issue.
Clause 1 introduces a general duty on local authorities, clarifying their role in promoting regular attendance and reducing the number of absences. It is absolutely right that local authorities do all they can to promote attendance at school. I pay tribute to those already going the extra mile, whether in Newham or Northumberland. Clause 2 lays out some particulars that schools must follow in their attendance policies and provides guidance on how this should be issued and communicated to parents. These are welcome measures, and I hope they will have a positive impact on the current situation in our schools. I know we all agree that we cannot ensure that every child gets the best start in life if they are missing so much time in the classroom.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I want to join colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on introducing the Bill and her work in getting it to this stage. She brought to the process not only her commitment and passion but a number of unique insights. It was a pleasure to join her in visiting The Boswells School when I came to Chelmsford, and it has been a pleasure working with her on the Bill. This topic is clearly of the highest importance to her, as I know it is to Members of this Committee and to the Government.
It was clear on Second Reading that right across the House there is a shared recognition of the value of regular school attendance for attainment, wellbeing and development. Put simply, none of the other brilliant parts of school—whether that is phonics, maths mastery, two hours a week of sport, being with friends or taking part in the school play—can have a benefit if children are not there for them. This issue is of highest priority for us. I am pleased to see that the cross-House support continues to hold through Committee stage. I feel very confident in recommending the Bill to pass through its remaining stages. I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley for her work in bringing forward the Children Not in School (Registers, Support and Orders) Bill, which is due for Committee stage in the coming weeks and which the Government also support.
The pandemic was one of the biggest challenges ever posed to the education system, both here and around the world. Among its knock-on effects is this unprecedented impact on absence.
Before the pandemic we had had long success in bringing down absence. It had been 6% at the time of the change in Government back in 2010, and it came down to 4.7% just before covid. Persistent absence came down from 16.3% to between 10% and 11% in the second half of the decade, until the onset of covid. Our goal is to build on the strengths of the existing system to improve attendance levels as quickly as possible back to pre-pandemic levels, and indeed better.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford reminded us, this issue is affecting different jurisdictions and education systems right around the western world from Norway to New Zealand. In England, it is one of our top priorities, and I am pleased to be able to say that we are seeing a difference. Thanks to the brilliant efforts of our school leaders, teachers and other members of staff, 440,000 fewer pupils were persistently absent or not attending in the past academic year than in the previous one. We welcome that improvement, but there is still clearly further to go to get to pre-pandemic levels, and indeed to improve further on them. There are still parts of the country where families do not yet have access to the right support. As my right hon. Friend outlined, the Bill will improve the consistency of support available in all parts of England, giving parents increased clarity, and levelling up standards across all 24,000 schools and 153 local authorities. Ultimately, this is about their 9 million pupils.
The Bill contains two main clauses: the first will impose a general duty on local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to promoting attendance and reducing absence in their areas, and the second will require schools of all types to have and to publicise a school attendance policy.
Mr Robin Walker
Ministers have to think carefully about imposing new duties on schools, but is not the reality that the vast majority of schools already have an attendance policy? Schools publicising it, however—sharing it and making it public—will be useful in encouraging dialogue with parents, local authorities and all the other organisations that come forward. What the Bill does in calling for publicity for the attendance policies is vital.
Damian Hinds
All that my hon. Friend says is correct. All schools have some form of attendance policy. There is some variation, and one of the things that is happening through this process—the Bill, and our wider work with behaviour hubs and champions, and so on—is to spread best practice. There is real interest from schools in doing so, because they see some of the variation in attendance rates and want to be able to do everything possible. Publicising is part of that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, when going into a secondary school, for example, families will know what the policy is, which itself can be a help in upholding those attendance policies.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Bill is great, and I thank my right hon. Friend for it. Is there any evidence that breakfast clubs in primary schools increase attendance? I am slightly confused: if people do not send their children to school, will breakfast clubs make them get up to take their young children to school earlier?
Damian Hinds
I think there is. There is some evidence that facilitating things for parents can be helpful, particularly when such things allow parents to go to work and so on. Where I might disagree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North is that that is not unique to primary schools; in fact, attendance is more of a problem at secondary school than it is at primary school. We spend quite a lot of money at the moment on supporting breakfast clubs in a targeted way—where they are most needed, where they can make the most difference—and a blanket approach to primary schools would not achieve that. We think it is right to target the money and to take a precise approach, recognising that absence is more of an issue in secondary schools. Through breakfast clubs and other things one might do, one can have more of an impact.
Both clauses will require all schools and local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance when complying with their duties under the Bill. That guidance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, is the piece entitled, “Working together to improve school attendance”. It is widely supported by schools, trusts and local authorities, and both the Select Committee—I am pleased to welcome its Chair here today—and the Children’s Commissioner for England have previously called for it to be made statutory.
The guidance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, was published in May 2022 to allow schools and local authorities time to implement the expectations. As I said earlier, we have already started seeing an improvement in attendance rates since then. To support the sector in delivering those expectations we have implemented a comprehensive attendance strategy; colleagues will be familiar with important aspects of that. We will of course continue to provide support.
To give an outline of that package, we have offered expert attendance advice support to every local authority in the country and to a number of trusts. We have set up attendance hubs, where lead schools offer support to others to improve their attendance practice—now reaching around 2,000 schools, responsible for 1 million pupils. We have created a new attendance data tool to help identify children at risk of persistent absence and enable early intervention. We convened the attendance action alliance at a national level to bring together system leaders from every part of our society, the public sector and parts of the charitable sector that can have an effect on this important issue. We are piloting attendance mentors who offer one-to-one targeted support to persistently absent pupils; we have recently appointed Mr Rob Tarn to the role of national attendance ambassador; and we have laid regulations that will, from the summer, modernise school registers and introduce a national framework for penalty notices.
I want to respond briefly to points made by colleagues. I say gently to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North that I do not think she really wants to bring politics into this. The truth is that these issues are affecting countries right around the world. They are also affecting the home nations—the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. In Wales a different political party is in government and absence rates in Wales are worse than they are in England, but I recognise that, overall, we share the same ambitions.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked about the support available to families. She is quite right to identify the importance of things like mental health support. That is why we have offered the training grant to all state-funded schools; I think 15,000 have now taken up that offer to have a senior mental health lead trained. It is also why we are rolling out mental health support teams across the country. We anticipate getting to 50% of pupils being covered by that by the end of this financial year. Already there is greater prevalence in secondary schools than primary schools. We are also supporting the national school breakfast club programme because of the effects it can have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made some very important points. First, I join him in paying tribute to the work of the teachers at the school that he mentioned. I have been blown away when visiting other schools around the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and I have of course had our own visits, and have had the opportunity to see some of the amazingly dedicated work and the lengths that schools and individual members of staff will go to, to try and ensure that every child has the opportunity of a first-class education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury is right: it is parents’ responsibility to have children go to school. We have also been communicating with parents directly —I think that is important—making sure, for example, that people know about the NHS guidance on when it is necessary to keep a child off school and when it is not. I have already mentioned our support for breakfast clubs.
Vicky Ford
I would just say a massive “thank you” again to everybody who has come here today, and for the various comments that have been made. I was not going to say very much now, but maybe I can just take a couple of minutes to reflect on some of the comments and put on the record some of the other work that I have done, because it may give rise to some “next steps” thoughts.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North. She is right about special educational needs. In my county of Essex, it is taking far too long for parents to get their children’s education, health and care plan, or ECHP. I am really glad that the county council has recruited extra staff; they are bringing in outside expertise to address that issue. And the Government have put considerably more money—60% more money, I believe £10.7 billion—into special educational needs.
The next steps that I would like to see include the building of more specialist hubs within mainstream schools, as particularly at primary school level I have seen those to be incredibly effective on both speech and language, and in children who may be on the neurodiversity spectrum, in helping children from many different primary schools—those who need such extra help—to get back into mainstream schooling, as well as the building of more specialist schools. So, some of the extra capital that the Government have given recently to go into those specialist hubs will make a real difference.
On the subject of mental health support, I agree that more children are saying that they have issues with their wellbeing. I have heard directly from schools that have said mental health support teams are useful.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned breakfast clubs. They can help some schools, but they will not necessarily help secondary schools, as the Minister said.
When I have spoken to schools about attendance, they have said that the issue of more children missing out on school seems to be particularly with girls in years 8, 9 and 10. If you read the survey on girls’ attitudes by Girlguiding UK, which they have conducted every year for many years, you will see that there is deep concern about the happiness levels of young women in this country. The more I read that survey, the more I am convinced that part of this issue is to do with what is happening to girls online, including what they are seeing online; we have to do more. I am really glad, therefore, that the Department for Education has said that no children should have phones in school; phones should not be allowed in schools. I am concerned about how many schools are not following that suggestion. I also think that we need to go further.
Because I am addicted to private Members’ Bills—[Laughter.]—I intend to introduce a new ten-minute rule Bill on the subject of children’s phones. I recently met a head of child protection and loads of other experts, and they believe that the best way to protect children’s phones is through the system operator. It is the iPhone Operating System and Android operators that can identify the age of the person who is using a phone from the way that they use that phone. They could easily put blockers on a child’s phone to stop a child being able to send sexual images of themselves or access age-inappropriate content. That may be the way my Bill goes, but that is next month’s work.
Many parents and schools talk to me about how the pandemic broke the contract between families and schools. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned the pandemic and the impact that it had on SEND provision. I was Minister for Children during the pandemic, and the challenges that we had in trying to keep schools open were huge. Many times, when all the evidence was that it was doing damage to our children, it was the unions that blocked the reopening of schools. I remember those conversations. I do not want to get into a political argument now—and the unions had important points about the safety of staff and so on—but I hope that if we ever go through a pandemic again, we will be able to work together to make sure that staff, parents and children are safe but that we minimise the loss to children. I am sure the hon. Lady will want to have a conversation with me afterwards about that.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Lady is saying, but I urge extreme caution on rewriting the history of the pandemic. It is really important that we take lessons from the inquiry and look at things in the round. As a parent at that time, I remember the difficulty that schools had staying open because of the level of covid among teaching staff. It is very dangerous to simplify it and blame one group of people. I think we all have lessons to learn from that very difficult national experience.
Vicky Ford
I remember living through the pandemic, and I agree that the inquiry is important. The hon. Lady is right that at times there were high levels of sickness among teaching staff, but at other times there were not.
On the issue of holidays, I can completely understand the pressure on some families to take holidays outside the school holidays, because they can be cheaper, but—I gave the statistics earlier—even a small drop in a child’s attendance can really hit their life chances, and there are 13 weeks of school holidays during the year. One thing that I would like to look at more is time shifting some of the school holidays. I have spoken with schools in Essex about whether they would shift some of their holiday weeks so that they do not overlap so much with national holidays, to give parents that bit more flexibility. I understand that in Germany there are different school holiday times in different regions. That type of flexibility, with local authorities working with the schools in their area, both maintained and academies, to ask, “Can we have a bit of a localised approach to give parents that bit more flexibility to take holidays away from the main school holidays?”, may be part of a solution.
I thank everyone very much for this piece of work. It is an important first step, and it has been great to have cross-party support on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 May 2024 - (1 May 2024)
The Chair
Good morning everybody. I call the Government Whip to move an amendment to the programme order. “Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 4.55 pm Professor Robert West, Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology, University College Long; Professor Ann McNeill, Professor of Tobacco Addiction, King’s College London”
Ordered,
That the Programme Order of the Committee of 30 April be varied by the insertion of the following words at the end of the table in paragraph 2—
—(Aaron Bell.)
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Professor Sir Michael McBride and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think you have introduced us, Dame Siobhain—unless you would like us to make just three comments on previous witness statements, just to help the Committee.
The Chair
That would be great.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think I speak on behalf of all the chief medical officers when I say we enormously welcome the Bill, which I think the overwhelming majority of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers fully support. It is an extraordinarily important public health measure.
There are three points we thought it would be useful to make, the first of which is about the harms of tobacco overall. You have heard already from witnesses how extraordinarily impactful tobacco is in multiple domains of health, right from stillbirth in children through to dementia in old age, and it is important to stress that that is true of all tobacco products. We have had questions about chewing tobacco, and I know there have been debates about heat-not-burn tobacco. Tobacco is an extraordinarily dangerous product that is highly addictive and causes cancer, heart disease and many other problems in all its forms. It is important to stress that. The cigarette industry is extremely adept at trying to claim that this kind or that kind of tobacco is safer, and therefore safe, and asking why we do not just let it go. The industry did it with filters and many other things. But I think we should be really clear that all tobacco is dangerous.
The second point is to re-stress that the whole basis of the cigarette industry, and indeed the vaping industry, is to addict people and to remove their choice. The tobacco industry has been highly successful at framing the debate as if this legislation is about removing choice, when actually it is selling products whose whole point is to addict people who then regret that choice for the rest of their life, many of whom will die as a result. All of us as doctors have seen so many people in all stages of life—from pregnancy all the way on—who wish they could stop but cannot because their choice has been removed. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of this Bill; it is a very pro-choice Bill.
Alongside that are the suggestions that the arguments somehow change at particular ages, such as 21. Tobacco remains equally addictive all the way through the life course, and all the way through the life course, people who start are likely to regret that choice but be unable to come back from it, because they have had their choice removed. We therefore cannot see a logical reason why, if Parliament is going to take this bold public health step, which is extraordinarily widely supported across the country, as well as in the health professions, it would not wish to finish the job and go all the way through. There is not really a logical point to that.
The final point came up in evidence yesterday, and I want to be clear, because I think there is actually a high consensus on this. We are strongly supportive of Ministers in all four nations having the power to regulate flavours as well as colours, packaging and other areas. There is a debate about the best way to do that, which will be dealt with; because it is in secondary legislation, this can be dealt with as we go through. But we would be very supportive of them having those powers. We know that otherwise the vape industry will use this to essentially drive a coach and horses through the aims of the Bill, which is to make products less attractive to children and, to a lesser extent, to non-smoking adults. That would be a big mistake. We also do not know the long-term effects that some of these flavours may have when smoked. We want to clarify that we are strongly in favour of this component of the Bill as well as others.
The Chair
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: I will briefly say hello. I am Sir Frank Atherton—rather than Francis, if I may, Chair. To echo what Sir Chris has said, it is rare to achieve such a high degree of consensus across the medical community as there is around this Bill. It really matters for people of the UK, and it really matters for the people of Wales.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I would reiterate every word that Sir Frank has just said. The consensus across the medical profession, as far as I can see, is absolute. Chris has spoken very clearly and represents the views of all the CMOs and our deputies. From conversations we have had with past CMOs, we know that they are supportive for the same reasons. We have the weight of professional opinion behind us, certainly from the medical profession.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: I am chief medical officer in Northern Ireland. I would echo all that has been said. To add to Sir Gregor’s point about the weight of professional opinion, in Northern Ireland we also have the weight of a huge majority of the public. They are hugely supportive of the smoke-free generation and of measures on displays, point of sale and flavours of vapes.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: To echo what Sir Chris said earlier, nicotine is uniquely addictive, and it is addictive across all ages. Simply raising the age to 21 may have a limited effect and may well not have a long-term effect. The tobacco industry is incredibly adept at adapting its tactics to target smokers, whatever their age. It would seem likely to us that people could quite reasonably become addicted beyond the age of 21, but the legislation would prevent that from happening because of the rising age across the course of life.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: Age verification is a relatively simple matter if there is to be a cut-off at 2009. It is much clearer to retailers that that would be the age at which people would not be eligible to buy tobacco products.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Shall I have a first go? One of the first groups to be enormously positively affected by the Bill will be pregnant women and their unborn children. I know you will be hearing from the chief midwife, but briefly, stillbirth, premature birth, “small for dates” babies and birth deformities are all things that happen as a result of smoking. It is extraordinarily dangerous. All mothers want the best for their children; but, to reiterate, smoking is so addictive that people’s choices have been removed. They wish to get rid of the smoking in pregnancy, and they cannot because their choice has been removed.
What is clear is that the age band at which the greatest amount of smoking in pregnancy occurs is the youngest women. People who have babies in their late teens or early 20s have by far the highest rate of smoking. Those, therefore, will be the ones who would be positively affected by this Bill the most quickly, because then they would not be going into a pregnancy already addicted to smoking, with all the consequent harms for their baby and subsequent child, which may be lifelong. I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to add to that.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: One of the most concerning aspects of smoking tobacco is the health inequalities that it accentuates. In Northern Ireland, rates of smoking in the most deprived areas are over three times the rate in the least deprived. As a consequence, lung cancer rates are two and a half times higher in the most deprived areas.
If we look at pregnancy, pregnant women in Northern Ireland in the most socioeconomically deprived areas are five times more likely to smoke than those in the less socioeconomically deprived areas. The consequences for their health, and for the health of their children and unborn child, are very significant. They are addicted to a habit that is causing them harm and their unborn child harm.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: To add to Sir Michael’s data, in Scotland in 2023, there were just over 50,000 pregnancies; 11% of those pregnancies—that is 5,500 pregnancies—were booked where the mother was recorded as still being a smoker. A further 6,000 were booked where the mother was a former smoker. These are still really significant numbers. Of course, as Sir Michael has just said, this not only has implications for the mother and the health of the pregnancy; it has longer-term implications for the baby as it develops and grows. We know that anything that we can do to reduce the number of women in these age groups who are coming to pregnancy as smokers will have a beneficial effect not only on them and the health of their pregnancy, but on the health of future generations.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: It is certainly true that we are not going as fast in Wales as we would like to see. Smoking prevalence has dropped, from about 22% in 2020 down to 13% at present, but our target is to reach 5% by 2030, and we are not currently predicting that we will meet that target unless we go further and faster. We believe that this Bill will enable us to do that.
You asked for the reasons. One of the reasons is that we have deep-seated sociodemographic problems in Wales, which you have been referring to. Given the inequity that we see, meeting the needs of current smokers from those really deprived socioeconomic groups is really quite a challenge. We are doing everything we can in Wales to try to address that through “Help Me Quit” and smoking cessation support, but we really need to prevent the next generation from coming on board with smoking.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Just following on from Sir Frank’s comments, you are absolutely correct that, while population prevalence of smoking sits at around 14% at the moment—behind the 12% in England and the 13% in Wales—we are doing slightly better than Scotland at the moment, which is sitting at about 15%. The figures for the Republic of Ireland are somewhere in the region of 18%. There is absolutely no doubt that we have the same socioeconomic drivers, in terms of social deprivation and health inequalities, that are fuelling this. Should the Bill succeed and pass into legislation, I see this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a significant change to protect future generations and their children from all the harmful consequences of smoking tobacco and other forms of tobacco use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Q
At the other end of the age range, elderly people who have smoked all their lives end up with decades of ill health brought on by a lifetime of smoking. I would be grateful, too, if you talked about some of the health outcomes for those who have smoked all their lives—some of the horrors of that. Sir Chris, you told me an anecdote of when you were a young vascular surgeon. For the record, it is important to talk about some of the heartbreak for those who wish they could stop smoking.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I completely agree with all the points you made. Starting off with the beginning of life, there are clear and significant increases in stillbirths, premature births, birth abnormalities and long-term effects from smoking just in the pre-birth period. Then, of course, if parents are smoking around babies and small children, that affects lung development and, if children have asthma, that will trigger asthma effects. Young children are significantly affected by passive smoking from their parents. The parents, of course, want the best for their children, but the problem is that they are now addicted to a product that has taken their choice away. We get those problems right from the very beginning, and we have talked about some of the issues in young pregnancies and where that leads.
Moving to the other end of the age spectrum that you were talking about, the full horrors of smoking for most people start to take effect from middle age onwards. At this point, people get a range of things. Everyone knows about lung cancer, I think, and most people know about heart disease, but there are effects on stroke or increases in dementia, which are significant—one of the best ways to delay dementia is not to smoke or to stop smoking at an early stage. That is a huge problem for all of us. Smoking also exacerbates any problems people have with diabetes—it makes that much worse—and people have multiple cardiac events leading to heart failure. In heavy smokers, we see extraordinary effects, like people having to lose their limbs. As you and I discussed, it is a tragedy to be on a ward with people with chronic obstructive airways disease, or on a vascular ward as a vascular surgeon with someone who has just had an amputation, weeping as they light up another cigarette, because they cannot stop, because their choice has been removed. I cannot hammer that point home firmly enough: this is an industry built on removing choice from people and then killing them in a horrible way.
Sir Francis Atherton: Minister, you also pointed out the cost to the NHS. In Wales, we estimate that we have about 5,500 deaths every year from smoking-related diseases. If we look at admissions to hospital, about 28,000 in the over-35 group is about 5% of overall hospital admissions. That is an enormous burden to the NHS. On a more personal basis, in a former life I was a GP, and I remember sitting with an elderly gentleman who at the end of his life was suffering with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is no worse death than not being able to breathe when just sitting there. I remember sitting with him as he was trying to talk to me and trying to express that same level of regret that Sir Chris talked about. If you talk to any smokers towards the end of their life, who are facing such terrible ends to their life, the sense of regret that you hear as a doctor is quite overpowering.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: It is estimated that in Northern Ireland there are more than 2,000 deaths each year directly attributable to smoking cigarettes; over the past five years, smoking makes up 12% of all deaths in Northern Ireland. Sir Frank and Sir Chris have clearly described the horrors of the impact that it has at an individual level, and as doctors we have all experienced that. We have all had those conversations with individuals who look back on a lifetime of regret.
On a more personal level, I also think at this moment about the impact that premature death, and the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking, has on families and children. My own father died at 46 years of age, when I was 16, from acute myocardial infarction as a consequence of a lifetime addiction to smoking cigarettes. So, we need to bear in mind the very human costs, family costs and wider societal costs as well. It is not just the cost to the health service, but the societal cost, the family cost and the cost to the wider economy.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: We should never forget the societal cost that Sir Michael just spoke about. I am the child of two smokers who died in their mid-60s from smoking-related disease. We see it all too often in Scotland. In fact, in Scotland we still have 9,000 deaths a year attributed to tobacco addiction and smoking. That is one death every 61 minutes that families suffer across Scotland as a consequence of addiction to smoking.
As a clinician, one of the diseases that I had become quite specialised in treating and led a lot of work on is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That is a smoking-related disease that people develop, often at too young an age, and begins to really impair their ability to participate fully in life—not only in employment, but in the pastimes that they love. Gradually, over time, it becomes worse.
Sir Frank touched on the sense of regret that people have that they ever started smoking in the first place and find themselves in this position. Beyond that, there is an even sadder element: many of the people who experience these chronic life-limiting illnesses have not only regret that they ever started, but guilt about the burden that they place on the health service and their family because of the illness and disability that they develop. That guilt sometimes reaches to the extent that they do not seek full care. Many people’s attitude is, “I deserve this. I started smoking; I need to pay the consequences.” That is a terrible psychological position for any person to find themselves in. Removing the starting point for that addiction, so that people will not experience that through their life, is the aim of the Bill.
Let me make one last point. We talk about the health impacts of all this. The Scottish burden of disease study projects that over the next 20 years, up until 2043, we will see a 21% increase in the general burden of disease across our population in Scotland, despite having a falling population during that time. Much of that projected burden of disease is smoking related; it relates to cancers, cardiovascular disease and neurological conditions such as dementia, which are all influenced by smoking. It is absolutely necessary for us to address this in a preventive way, and I believe that the Bill is a very good way of doing that.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I want to reinforce the point that Sir Gregor just made, with which I am sure the Committee fully agrees, that individual smokers should never be blamed for the situation they are in. An incredibly wealthy, very sophisticated marketing industry deliberately addicted them to something, at the earliest age it could get away with it, and they have had their choice removed. It is important that people do not feel guilt and come forward for care, and that no one blames them for a situation that was deliberately put on them by industry marketing.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Q
As a follow-on from that, I am concerned about the advertising of vape companies on sports kits, which is profoundly unhelpful. When we look at sporting figures who young people can admire, that has absolutely no place. I wonder what your views are on that.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: My views are very clear on vaping in young people and on sales to the youth categories. This is an activity that we are still learning much about but that the evidence, as it emerges, appears to suggest is very harmful to them. In my conversations with my paediatricians and with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, they are very concerned about the impacts on health of young people from beginning vaping. Any attempt to make products such as single-use vapes or flavoured vapes, or the packaging used or the marketing around vapes, more attractive to that age group is something that we need to counter and resist.
I would say that the aims of the Bill will allow us the means by which we can properly consult on the way that we attempt to reduce overall vaping use in this age group. I am very clear in my views on this: while I understand that vaping may be an assistance to people who are already addicted to tobacco and nicotine products as a consequence of use of many years—I see that there may be an argument that it allows them to reduce the level of harm they are exposed to—I am not convinced or led by any of the arguments that starting vaping in a younger age group is a safe activity at all. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that it is harmful to those groups. We must try to counter that, and to counter the marketing machine that Sir Chris has spoken about, by reducing the flavours and packaging that are attractive to younger people.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I am very much in favour of the sports industry in general promoting health-promoting behaviours in any way. Where I become very uncomfortable, and I am not supportive, is where the massive attraction of sports companies is used in a way that promotes behaviours that are known to be unsafe or unhealthy. Given the evidence base that we have for this, I would certainly favour breaking the connection between the marketing of these products by any organisation—I do not limit this to sports companies—and anything that is attractive to this demographic and age group.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I completely agree with all the points that Professor Sir Gregor has made; I know all the CMOs would agree with that. What all the witnesses that you have heard so far have said, which I think reflects the debate, is that we want to retain vapes as one of the tools to help some smokers to quit. That is a sensible thing to do. We are reasonably confident that they are safer than smoking, but saying that something is safer than smoking is setting an unbelievably low bar, because of all the harms that it does.
So yes, moving from smoking to vaping is a step in the right direction—we want to be clear about that—but we absolutely do not want this to be marketed to anybody who is not a smoker, and above all to children, which is utterly unacceptable. We should be very clear about this. Many people in the vape industry will say, “No, no, no: we don’t market to children.” You walk into a vape shop and think, “Who are you kidding?” It is very clear what is happening.
We should be really clear that the only thing that is being supported here is to help people who currently smoke to move over to not smoking and eventually to quitting. A step towards that can be vaping; all other uses of vapes we would absolutely not want to do anything to support. The balance in the Bill is to allow enough elements to make it more attractive to vape than to smoke, because we do want to do that, but to make it in no way more attractive than that, because we absolutely do not want anyone else to do it.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think we are all very keen for the Bill to get through in the time that remains in this Parliament, so none of us would want to complicate this, but as Sir Gregor says, what we really want is for sports to be very firmly in the area of things that promote health. This is one of the areas that I do not think any of us would suggest is promoting health, so in broad terms we would agree, while not wanting in any way to complicate the Bill that is before Parliament at the moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I wonder whether Sir Michael might want to go first, and then Sir Frank.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: We have to start somewhere. What we actively want to do, at this point in time, is encourage those individuals who smoke to quit smoking. We recognise that there are nicotine replacement products other than vapes that are very effective and that individuals successfully use, but for some individuals, as has been stated already and as is outlined in the relevant NICE guidance, vapes can be effective and are safer than smoking. It is about finding the sweet spot—hence the powers to consult.
We need to get a balance to ensure that we are absolutely not creating circumstances in which vaping is attractive to young children, starts a lifetime of addiction to nicotine and is potentially a gateway to smoking tobacco, as I think your question is suggesting. But at this point in time, this is an important step to ensure that the next generation are protected from smoking tobacco. We need to support those individuals who currently smoke or are currently addicted to nicotine to gradually move away from that addiction. That includes supporting smokers who currently smoke to quit, but we are increasingly seeing individuals who wish to quit vaping and are finding it difficult.
We are at the start of a journey. As Sir Chris has said, we do not want to delay this Bill and this important step change, in terms of making very significant progress. Sir Frank, do you want to add to that?
Sir Francis Atherton: Very briefly. The principle of alignment is a positive one. Keeping it simple for the public is in the interest of messaging, as a general point. In Wales, we did try—in 2016, I think it was—to align smoke-free and vape-free public places. Personally, I think that there is merit in that, but we have to be careful, because some of the arguments are different. The arguments around smoke-free public places are based on passive smoking, but we do not have a lot of data on passive vaping; many people see it as a nuisance, but that is a very different argument. We need to be a little bit cautious about that, even though I would personally be in favour.
The important thing is to remember that we really need to keep vapes as the quit tool. Your point about moving towards a nicotine-free next generation is absolutely right; that is really what we want to do. If we can make it less acceptable and less prevalent that children take up vaping, we should move towards that. The reality is that over the last three years we have seen a tripling of vaping among our children and young people. That is just unacceptable. The measures in the Bill will help deal with that and lead us, we hope, towards the nicotine-free generation that you talk about.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: My view on the Bill as it stands is that it is a starting point for how we take this work forward. It is adequate in that sense because this is a really important area. For me, the absolute priority has to be to remove young people’s ability to access vapes and so begin the journey to nicotine addiction.
I am not in favour of criminalising the possession of these products, but I am certainly in favour of banning their sale to younger people. If we can achieve that at this stage, and, as Sir Michael said in his previous answer, if we can begin to shift the culture so that people do not start to use vapes and begin to become addicted—potentially also by using other nicotine and tobacco products—for me that will be a good job done.
If we do things that way, it will allow us to protect the useful use of vapes: where people with a lifelong addiction to tobacco can use them as way to help them stop. That is the only justification that I can see now for the way we have set this up and for continuing to use vapes in society: as a useful tool for those with a pre-existing addiction to tobacco, so that they can reduce the harm and gradually stop using tobacco—through formal cessation services, as well.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I agree with Sir Gregor. To reiterate, the Minister wanted to get a balance and most people would agree that criminalising people for individual possession is a step further than anyone would want and is needed. I do not think there is a clamour for that from anybody, and I think it would not help the Bill.
On prescription vapes, I would like to see those available for use at the moment. So far—I will go into the reasons for this on another occasion—no products are available that we can prescribe. We would all very much like those products to be there so that people can prescribe them. That is different from saying that they should be only on prescription; at this point, we do not even have any products to prescribe at all. If we did, that would be a very firm step in the right direction, but it depends on the industry coming forward with products.
Speaking directly to the industry, I should say that I do think there is a very important niche for prescription vapes. They would be very useful for some people, particularly those on low incomes who, for other health reasons, have free prescriptions. I encourage anyone from the industry who is listening to think seriously about bringing forward a prescription vaping product appropriate for aiding people to quit.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have had the privilege of being more heavily involved in this Bill than the other CMOs, so I am going to ask them to answer it. My short answer is that this is a fantastic Bill. What I do not want is for the Bill to be delayed and therefore to not get through in the parliamentary time available. There is always a danger with these things, particularly when we are up against the clock, of the best being the enemy of the good. This is more than good; this is an outstanding Bill, to be clear, in terms of the Prime Minister’s bravery in putting it forward and, I think, the huge support from the general public and massive support from those working in healthcare. Really, what we want to do is get this through. I fully accept the points you are making, but that is my real concern about proposing any additions. Maybe you can start with Sir Michael, then Sir Gregor and then Sir Frank.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: I think this is a situation where perfection risks snatching victory from us. The most important thing, having looked at the Bill closely, is that this is an excellent Bill. I think we have all indicated that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, as your question suggests. We need to seize this opportunity. I and my colleagues fully support this Bill. I think this is a point that we will look back on five or 10 years from now and we will say that we were on the right side of history in supporting the Bill. This will make a fundamental difference to the next generation and generations to follow. Again, it is entirely consistent with the commitment in the Northern Ireland Executive to gradually phase out tobacco smoking. I fully support the Bill as it stands.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I have nothing much more to add. In my view, this is a momentous point in time when we have the ability to really safeguard the future health of generations of people who will not be exposed to the regretful, harmful addiction to tobacco that they might have encountered. I am very satisfied with the content of the Bill as it is just now. The point Sir Michael makes about perfection being the enemy of good is a really important one. This is an opportunity that, to be honest, I really did not anticipate seeing in my career, yet here we are discussing a potential piece of legislation that will allow us to improve the health of people in our country for years and generations to come. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.
Sir Francis Atherton: There are no changes to the primary legislation that I would recommend at the moment. One thing I would say is that in Wales, we were very impressed with the Khan review, which gave us a really good steer. Many of the Khan review recommendations will be dealt with through the Bill, while a couple will not. I think the Bill as it stands has enough flexibility, particularly around vaping, to allow secondary legislation to keep up with the industry as it adapts and as it tries to find ways around the barriers to getting young people addicted to nicotine.
If I had a wish from the Khan review, it would be around the industry making a contribution to those costs I was talking earlier—the cost to the NHS—so sort of a levy on the industry to correct the damage, or a polluter pays thing, as is being introduced for the gambling industry. However, I do not think that would fit at all with the current Bill.
Bob Blackman
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I reiterate at the beginning that we think it is safer to vape than smoke—I always have to say that first. All of us, including the other CMOs—what I am about to say is a pretty central view in the medical profession—would say that there are many things in vapes that we know cause harm, but we do not know the extent of the harm because they are relatively new products, or we would say we do not know whether they cause harm, but they might well do. We know from work on air pollution that there are large numbers of chemicals that if you breathe them in in reasonable concentrations are highly damaging not just to lungs but to brains, the liver and many other things, but are not damaging if you eat them.
The fact that something is non-toxic—a food additive, say—does not necessarily mean that it is non-toxic if you inhale it. So all of us are very cautious about the long-term effects of vaping and very concerned that we do not see a large expansion of vaping in people who were not smokers. That is particularly true for children. Within that, there are things available in legal vapes—multiple things—and every time a new flavour is brought in, new chemicals are introduced for which we often do not have a good evidence base. In my view, the onus should be on the industry to prove it is safe when inhaled, and not on us to prove 20 years later that it was dangerous. There is a very serious concern about that. Additionally, there is a significant additional risk from illegal vapes, of which there are many, which contain really very dangerous chemicals—heavy metals of various sorts.
None of us would want you to go away with the idea that we think vapes are safe and that we would encourage their use, except in the narrow context of someone who was a smoker, where we definitely think they are safer. But that, as I said earlier, is setting the bar very low.
The Chair
I inform Committee members that we have 14 minutes to go and three people who have not yet spoken and would like to. I want to bring in the Minister and the shadow Minister at the end. I notice that there is huge unanimity among our panel members. Could I also ask you to be brief and perhaps get one of your number to answer a question so that we get everybody in? Bambos Charalambous is next.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: In the interests of brevity—the medical director of the NHS is one of your next witnesses—there would be an immediate effect on the NHS because things like asthma attacks in children would be affected almost immediately. Over time there will be a growing positive impact on the NHS as people do not prematurely become unwell with chronic diseases that are extremely difficult to treat and consume enormous resources, in addition to the much more important thing of the extraordinary impact on individuals and their families, their social life, their work life and so on. So there will be a positive and growing impact. If you look forward 30, 40, 50 years, the impact of the Bill on the NHS will be substantial, but we will start to see the effects rapidly, particularly at the paediatric end of the spectrum.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will reiterate my point and then hand over to Sir Frank for a longer answer. Cigarettes are a product designed to take choice away. That is the whole basis of the industry. If you are pro-choice you are anti-cigarette—absolutely, straightforwardly, no question.
Sir Francis Atherton: As I have said, nicotine is an incredibly addictive substance and it does not take long to become addicted, so it is not really a stage; it is almost instantaneous. People smoke a few cigarettes and the nicotine addiction kicks in. Obviously, it varies from person to person, but by and large it is highly addictive to young people. The younger you start, the more addictive it is, but it is addictive across the whole of the lifecycle, so nobody is immune to that addiction. Breaking that cycle of addiction and getting out of it gets you into psychological dependencies and repeated attempts to quit—the things that many smokers have been through, which cost them so much time, energy and effort, in terms of money and their personal effort and wellbeing. That is all I can say about the status of addiction. Was there anything more specific that you wanted to know?
Trudy Harrison
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: As with any addictive substance, when you are deprived of it you suffer cravings and withdrawal symptoms of a sort, and that leads you to want the next hit—the next cigarette. That cycle of dependency and addiction is well known and well understood, but you would have to talk to a behavioural psychologist or a physiologist to get a more detailed answer.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: To add to that, most smokers who are determined to quit make multiple attempts—even those who finally succeed, and many people do not succeed. As I was saying, so many people want to succeed and cannot because the addiction has a hold on their brain, essentially.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: There is a surprising degree of consensus on this issue, which is sometimes difficult to pick up. We know it is useful to have in the armamentarium the ability to have some flavours to help smokers to quit, but we also know that the cigarette industry is extraordinarily good at adapting its marketing techniques to whatever leeway it is given. If Ministers do not have the power to chase down the industry’s ability to market to children using flavours, that is what it will do: it will go for multiple flavours as a way to get to children and non-smokers. That is what it has always done, so that is what it will do. This Bill gives powers to Ministers in the four nations to make sure they can restrict these products to the extent that you can make them not attractive, but attractive enough to smokers to move on. It allows the slider to be moved left or right to balance attractiveness to smokers against not making it attractive to non-smokers.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Possibly, but this Bill gives powers that allow us to vary it depending on what the industry does. That is really the point.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I wonder whether I can turn to Sir Gregor first, and then maybe Sir Michael.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I am not aware of the NHS ever engaging any of these influencers, in terms of how we approach the subject of vaping. There is certainly a real danger that social media is sometimes used by younger people, and they see things that become really attractive to them in terms of lifestyle. The misinformation and disinformation that exists across those platforms can lead them to participate in activities that are potentially harmful.
Directly to your question, my very strong answer to any young person thinking about using one of these products as an appetite suppressant is: please don’t. Please safeguard your health. Do not begin the potentially addictive journey of using these products. Do not do it for any reason.
Going back to the point we made earlier on, I would love to see a society where our sports organisations promote much more healthy behaviours, where we have a much better understanding of the huge variation in body image we have across our society, and where we promote the very positive and broad representation of who we are as the general public, because there is no “one size fits all” answer to who we are. We are beautiful in our diversity. Anything we can do to have a more positive representation of society across these platforms would be very beneficial.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Believe it or not, I was a teenager once too, and I remember what it was like. Teenagers tend to push boundaries and experiment. It is all about finding yourself and your place and space in life. It is not cool to vape. It is not cool to succumb to peer pressure. Be yourself. Make sensible choices about what it is right for you. That is the message I would add to Sir Gregor’s point. We have an unfortunate situation where teenagers like to experiment and push boundaries and we have an industry that is only too willing to exploit that and market products at them with, as we heard, cartoon figures on the front, attractive colours and flavours that taste and smell nice. They are extensively marketed by opinion leaders. So don’t follow the crowd. Be yourself.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
There is a growing illicit vape market, but how would parents know what is illicit or what the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has notified as being compliant? Where is the public health messaging to support schools? We heard really good evidence yesterday from the union. This is my concern: where can people access support and information? We already have a generation of kids addicted to vapes that are marketed as having 0% nicotine, but we know that there is nicotine contained in them. What would you say to that?
Sir Francis Atherton: There is some messaging going on through the various Governments. In Wales we have a “No Ifs. No Butts.” programme, which tries to work at an individual level, to alert people to the dangers that we have been discussing, and with wider society, about the dangers and links between illicit tobacco and illicit vaping and organised crime. Bringing that awareness to the population is really important for those two reasons.
We work with trading standards to try to tackle the issue of illicit tobacco and vapes. It is important that we continue that. My understanding is that wherever we have been successful in reducing demand, which the Bill intends to do, the illicit supply also decreases. We would expect that to be a consequence of the Bill.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: One of the many talking points of the cigarette industry is, “Well, any kind of downward pressure on cigarettes would lead to an increase in the illicit market.” All the evidence shows that the reverse happens. When you bring in reduced demand, the illicit market decreases.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: That would be very damaging, because we know that this is one of the most innovative marketing industries in the world. That is how they have managed to sell to people something that will addict them and then kill them. If we give them room for manoeuvre by nailing things down, they will find a way around it, because they always have found a way around regulations. I am absolutely supportive of the comment you have just made.
The Chair
I am afraid this brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank all the witnesses, because you answered a huge number of questions and provided great information.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Sir Stephen Powis and Kate Brintworth gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: My name is Professor Sir Stephen Powis and I am the national medical director of NHS England.
Kate Brintworth: Good morning, everyone. My name is Kate Brintworth and I am the chief midwifery officer for NHS England.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: Yes, I do. As you have heard from the chief medical officers, vaping has a role in tobacco cessation and supporting those who want to quit smoking. That is the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which we follow and support in the NHS. Evidence is increasing that starting vaping and the use of nicotine-based alternatives to smoking is likely not to be safe. As far as the NHS is concerned, we would support the limited use within smoking cessation, but we have real concerns around the impact that vaping might have over time. At present, we see a relatively small number of admissions into hospital as a result of vaping, but that is growing; it has grown over the last few years. Clearly, as you discussed earlier, the evidence base that these products are not safe is growing.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Kate Brintworth: Our position on vapes is that they are a tool for those who are already addicted to smoking. As Chris outlined earlier, this is a way of supporting people to move away from cigarettes. We would then expect that to be part of their journey to becoming a nicotine and smoke-free household.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: Yes, we have. If you look at admissions recorded in our statistics related to vaping, you will see that they are in the hundreds. They are relatively low, and of course much lower than smoking, but as I think you have heard from the chief medical officers’ evidence, these are not safe products. We are at the early stages of the evidence-base building around their impact. I think we should be nipping this in the bud. We should not be waiting for those admissions to increase and for those effects to be seen. This is an opportunity to reverse that direction, and I applaud parliamentarians for taking it.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: I will make a few broad comments on smoking, if I can. Seventy-eight years ago, Parliament passed the National Health Service Act 1946, which led to the formation of the NHS on 5 July 1948. In my view, the legislation that you are considering here today is one of the most important—possibly the most important—pieces of legislation since the passage of that Act. Why? Smoking has an extraordinary impact upon the health of the nation, and of course directly upon the NHS.
To put that into a bit more context—you have heard some of this already, but maybe I will provide some more detail—smoking is associated with, or causes, over 100 individual conditions that are managed and treated within the NHS. It impacts the NHS at all levels: almost every minute of every day there is a hospital admission related to smoking; there are over 100 GP appointments every hour for smoking-related disease; and 400,000 admissions a year are related to or associated with smoking. You have heard the chief medical officers briefly talk about the impact on specific diseases. Lung cancer is the one that everyone knows about, and 80% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. This Bill has the opportunity to transform lung cancer from a common disease into a relatively rare disease, and one that clinicians of the future will not see in any way as commonly as clinicians of my generation.
It is not about just lung cancer; you have heard about the impact on cardiovascular disease, and clearly, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease would again become a rare disease for the clinicians and the patients of the future. This Bill can also have an early impact on diseases that affect young people. Asthma is a disease not caused by smoking but a condition exacerbated by it. We see such admissions particularly over the months when asthma is worse and when there are respiratory infections, which are no doubt exacerbated by smoking.
In mental health, smoking doubles the risk of developing depression. More than one in two people with severe mental health conditions smoke, and the life expectancy of those with mental health conditions is reduced because of smoking. Mental health issues in our young people and children are well-known and well-described, and smoking simply exacerbates them. There is great potential, even in the early years, in the passage of this Bill for an impact on conditions that we see and manage in the NHS. Over the long term, that potential impact is extraordinary on those conditions, which number over 100.
You may know that I am a kidney doctor, but you may not know that smoking can impact on kidney disease. The kidney, like any organ, is supplied by blood vessels. When smoking impacts on the health of blood vessels and causes vascular disease, that can reduce the bloody supply to the kidney, which can cause kidney failure and lead to dialysis and transplantation. There is a large range of conditions that are impacted by smoking, and it will be extraordinary for those clinicians of the future not to have to do what we have done—tell patients and their families that people are going to die prematurely. That is an extraordinarily difficult thing for clinicians to do. Those are preventable diseases, and this Bill will prevent them.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Kate Brintworth: It is important to start with the fact that we know that smoking is the single biggest modifiable risk factor for pregnancy, and we know that every women who gets pregnant wants the best for her baby. As a midwife, I have never sat in front of a woman who does not want the absolute best for her baby. It is important to build on what Chris Whitty said around the removal of choice. Women will go to extraordinary lengths to protect their bodies and babies to ensure that their children have the best start in life, and yet the quit rates that we see in pregnant women are between 30% and 40%, showing how difficult it is for women to extricate themselves from the situation in which they find themselves.
The effects are devastating: stillbirths are increased by 47%; you are twice as likely to have a baby that has not grown properly; and you are 27% more likely to have a baby that is born pre-term. You are more likely to have complications of pregnancy, such as bleeding, the placenta not forming properly or the waters that surround the baby breaking earlier with the risk of infection, so there are immediate effects that we can see. If a baby is small, it goes into labour more vulnerable to the stresses of labour, so we can have more complications there. If a caesarean section is needed, the mother is more vulnerable to recovery and it can be a much harder road to recovery for her, with the risk of infection and blood clots, but also for the baby. If the baby is born early, obviously the risk then is that the baby and mother are separated and you have this unnecessary trauma to a family of a baby having to go into a neonatal unit. The risks that come from prematurity are well-documented for children, for educational attainment and for their lung and health development, but when the children go home, they are more at risk of sudden infant death syndrome—up to three times more—in a smoking household.
There are then the long-term effects. We have already heard about asthma, chest infections and obesity. All those are heightened in children born into smoking households. You have a situation where children are at risk and women are at their most vulnerable when they are pregnant, and it really feels like it is our duty to support this Bill to protect the most vulnerable in our society, because there are the effects of having a child born with possible behavioural problems and malformations, which have been described. Those are really shocking events. I was talking to service users yesterday who have had children in the neonatal unit, and it is incredibly shocking when your pregnancy ends early and you are separated from your baby. There is a mental health impact on the family. There is also the point that this affects those coming from the most socioeconomically deprived backgrounds, for whom having any kind of health challenge makes it a much higher bar to fight.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Kate Brintworth: The birth of a child is so happily anticipated by every person who gets pregnant. From the moment that you see a thin blue line, you are having a baby. You have hopes and dreams for the expansion of your family, but not just for that individual family: a baby is born, and it is a niece, a nephew, a grandchild, a cousin. It really ripples out across the entire family. When there is then a 35% risk of miscarriage and a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy and, as you said, the absolutely awful, tragic and devastating news that your baby has died when it reaches term, that is something that no parent should ever have to face unnecessarily. It just feels like the worst thing you ever have to do as a clinician to tell someone that their baby has died. Every time I have ever had to do that, it has been the worst point in my career. It is difficult to explain how destroying it can be for families, and we see the long-term sequelae in terms of mental health, to the point where we have put in extra perinatal mental health support for families that have suffered that kind of trauma.
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: Can I pick up on the health inequalities aspect, because I think that is really important and I have the figures in front of me? In 2021-22, 21% of pregnant women in the most deprived areas smoked at the time of delivery, compared with 5.6% in the least deprived areas. That is a really stark difference. Smoking is widely accepted as the most significant driver of health inequalities in the UK. Detailed analysis has concluded that 85% of the observed inequalities between socioeconomic groups could be attributed to smoking. We spend a lot of time in the NHS quite rightly targeting our interventions and support to deprived areas to address health inequalities. At a stroke, this Bill would have the greatest impact that we could possibly see.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Steven Powis: I have already highlighted some of the short-term impacts, and there will undoubtedly be short-term impacts. Some conditions are exacerbated by smoking, with asthma in children being an obvious one. I have talked about mental health conditions and the way that smoking exacerbates conditions such as depression and chronic mental health illness.
We will start to see immediate effects, but those effects will grow over time. I have given you some of the conditions that are impacted on by smoking—there are well over 100 of them—but I can give some more stats. By stopping children from ever starting to smoke, we estimate that we will prevent about 30,000 new cases of smoking-related lung cancer every year. More than 1.4 million people suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is a chronic disease of the lungs caused by smoking—it causes nine out of every 10 cases. As I said, that is a disease that clinicians commonly see. A common cause of admissions to emergency departments, through the winter particularly, is other respiratory infections on top of COPD—these are diseases that future clinicians will see rarely. They will not see them in the way that clinicians of my generation have had to manage them. The impact will begin immediately, but over time that impact will get greater.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: As I outlined earlier, the impact on the NHS of vaping at the moment is relatively small compared with the impact of smoking. Nevertheless, there is an impact, and we are seeing growing numbers. I have highlighted the number of admissions per year, but they have doubled over the past few years, so that impact is becoming apparent. For example, yellow card reporting to the MHRA is a mechanism for reporting harm, and again the number of incidents related to vaping is increasing, although still in relatively low numbers.
As I said earlier, however, what is important here is that the evidence base, although emerging, is growing. This is an opportunity for us not to get into a position where, in years to come, we regret that we did not take the steps early on to change the trajectory. Instead of seeing rising impact on the NHS—small at the moment, but with the potential to be greater—that trajectory should be changed. This is a golden opportunity for parliamentarians to step in early and to prevent further pressure building over time on the NHS, while recognising that the evidence is still emerging.
I agree with the chief medical officers you heard earlier: I do not believe that vaping is safe. It is undoubtedly safer than smoking, which is why we support its use as a means of smoking cessation, but beyond that the evidence is building that it is not safe. Unquestionably, it will have a building impact on the NHS.
Angela Richardson
Q
How much do we know about the difference between the impacts of smoking and vaping? Thinking of the impact of vaping on babies, is vaping still an okay thing for pregnant women to be doing? Do we need to specifically address the impacts of vaping and smoking on pregnant people in the Bill?
Kate Brintworth: If we start with the evidence, as we have heard this morning there is a limited evidence base around vaping, but that does not mean we should be complacent. We know there is evidence around the transfer of chemicals and the reduction in lung capacity, which we see. As Chris said, while that is an improvement against the very, very low bar of smoking, we would see it as one step on a journey—an interim measure to being nicotine and tobacco free. On that basis, I do not think I would frame it as being okay to vape. We would see it as a tool—a means to an end—to reach the position of being nicotine and smoke free.
We will absolutely support research monitoring the impact of vaping. We cannot be complacent that it is going to be all right. However, at the moment, vaping is absolutely better than smoking, with the very well documented impacts that I have described on not just the mother but the baby and the future health of the family; we know that children born into households where smoking occurs are likely to start smoking themselves.
Angela Richardson
Q
Kate Brintworth: It is all of it—all the elements. In some babies born to smokers, the children can almost suffer withdrawal symptoms and be jittery and restless in the neonatal period because they themselves are having to go through that withdrawal that is so difficult to enact. We also know of the numerous chemicals—arsenic, carbon monoxide—all of which are toxic to infants, so in no way would you want to distinguish out. It is a whole package of things, all of which we would like pregnant women and babies not to be exposed to.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: Over time, this Bill will lead to the eradication of an addictive condition that causes the immense harm that we have described. But of course, that will occur over time, so it is also important that we continue with a range of other measures to encourage those not immediately impacted by the raising of the age of sale of tobacco products to cease smoking.
We have a number of smoking cessation programmes within the NHS, which was part of our ambition in the long-term plan for the NHS five years ago. We have been rolling out and supporting those services within hospital settings, and we should continue doing that. Of course, local authorities should also continue their work in supporting smoking cessation. Much of that is also targeted at women who are pregnant.
Part of that work is also supporting staff. Smoking rates across the 1.3 million or 1.4 million people employed within the NHS are lower than across the general public, but we nevertheless continue to see NHS staff who smoke. It tends to be in the lower pay grades within the NHS, but of course for all sorts of reasons we would like that rate to come down. Obviously there is the health benefit, but also, as you all know, smoking causes illness, illness causes absenteeism and absenteeism is a cost to the NHS. Although, as I said, we strongly support the Bill, it is important for us within NHS England and the wider NHS to continue to take other measures and put in place other programmes that will assist the public and our own staff to quit cigarettes.
Trudy Harrison
Q
I would like to understand the power of addiction to be able to make the point that this is a pro-choice Bill. It will give women more choice against that addiction that they are enduring at the most important point of their lives, when they are unable to make that choice for themselves.
Kate Brintworth: I absolutely agree with you. As I have said, pregnant women go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves and their babies. They change what they eat and drink and how they behave in myriad ways to ensure that they are doing the right thing, yet it has proven very difficult to shift the figures you describe—I think nationally it is a little over 7% of women who are still smoking. That is a poignant demonstrator of just how difficult it is and how addictive nicotine is, when all women want to do is the right thing for their children. That is why all the chief nursing and midwifery officers across the four countries are united in support of the Bill, as our medical colleagues are, because we see the damage wrought across families and generations. We are 100% behind it.
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: It is important to re-emphasise the point made repeatedly by the chief medical officer for England: smoking and nicotine addiction takes away choice. When you are addicted, you do not have the choice to simply stop doing something. It is an addiction. It is a set of products that removes choice, and in removing that choice, people are killed.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
Kate Brintworth: The information that we have so far suggests, as it does across all areas of healthcare, that vaping is safer than smoking. What we do not have is the long-term data that we have on smoking to give us the confidence to describe the harms clearly. That is something that we need to keep observing and understanding so that we can give people the best-quality information.
Professor Sir Stephen Powis: NHS England is not a primary funder of research but we are an evidence-based organisation, as I described earlier, particularly on the use of vaping for smoking cessation. We are very keen that the evidence base, particularly on vaping, is expanded. We would support research in terms of calling for it to be undertaken but also in terms of supporting the NHS as a delivery mechanism for the context in which that research is done.
We very much want to support further research because, as you know as a paediatrician, this is an area where the evidence base is emerging but there is more to do. It is not as complete as the evidence base for smoking. It is really important, even with the passage of this Bill, that that evidence base grows and that we in the NHS support the generation of further evidence where we can.
The Chair
Thank you. That is a good point at which to say that this session has ended and to thank our witnesses for all the information they have provided.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Kamila Hawthorne and Professor Steve Turner gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Hawthorne: I am Kamila Hawthorne. I am a GP in south Wales. I work in a post-industrial, very deprived town up in the Welsh valleys. I am chair of council and have been for the past 18 months.
Professor Turner: Good morning, everybody. Thanks for having me. I am Steve Turner, president of the College of Paediatrics and Child Health. My other job is as a paediatrician in Aberdeen. I have 20 years’ experience as a consultant looking after children with asthma and other breathing problems, and I have done 20 years’ research into the harm of tobacco exposure to children before and after they are born. I am an advocate for our 20,000 members in the UK, including one here, and our 4,000 members overseas. I am also an unapologetic advocate for children and young people. Finally, we believe this Bill is splendid. We would be happy for the version that we have seen to be approved unamended.
Dr Johnson
As a declaration of interest, I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Hawthorne: Smoking-related illnesses cost the NHS about £2.5 billion a year. Everybody knows that lung cancer goes with smoking, but what I am really seeing is awful chronic obstructive airways disease. I work in a deprived area. Many of my patients have smoked ever since they were teenagers and find it very difficult to stop. Every winter, they come to see me repeatedly with severe chest infections that require courses of steroids and antibiotics and sometimes hospital admissions. It is really difficult.
I had a patient who sadly has passed away now with end-stage lung disease caused by smoking. The difficulty we had keeping her as well as we could at home was that she could not have home oxygen because she continued to smoke. It was a massive difficulty for her to stop smoking, even though it was causing her to virtually strangle herself. That just shows what a difficult thing this is.
Professor Turner: To follow on briefly, you might think that children do not demonstrate some of the impacts that Kamila has just described, but that is not the case. Following on from the conversation before, nicotine is not good for you. If you are a foetus inside of your mam, it will cause uterine arteries to spasm and effectively strangle you—reduce the oxygen to you.
We know that vaping contains nicotine. Nicotine makes you small and, if you are born small, you are already on a trajectory for all the non-communicable diseases that Kamila and her colleagues will see in primary care: cancer, heart disease, stroke and hypertension. From the paediatric perspective, there are issues. Children do not concentrate so well when they are addicted to something, so their attention in school is changed. That will affect their learning outcomes and their future economic productivity. The devices sometimes set on fire, so if you have one in your mouth, it can create burns. Fortunately, there are few serious life-threatening complications, but you might have heard of popcorn lung, which is fortunately rare but is very serious. With popcorn lung, when you look at the lungs on a scanner, it looks like they are full of holes.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Turner: Yes, absolutely. The tobacco industry knows that, at the age of 15, we as a species are at the sweet spot for becoming addicted to nicotine for life. The proposed Bill will effectively stop that. Protecting our children from becoming addicted to something that will shorten their lifespan by 10 to 15 years has to be a good thing for us as a responsible society to do.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Hawthorne: We know that vaping can cause people to start smoking; it can lead to smoking. We do not have much evidence—I think you have been told this already this morning—as to what the long-term effects of vaping are. We have known about smoking damage since the work of Sir Richard Doll in the 1960s, so this is relatively new. We know there are chemicals in what people are inhaling—that is what causes the popcorn lung—but it is actually only one particular chemical that has been linked, and there are lots. Since 2016, vapes have not been allowed to actually have that chemical any more, but there are other chemicals, and we still do not know what long-term effects they might have.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Professor Hawthorne: There is probably very little research on either.
Professor Turner: If I could just bring a bit of clarity, it is well known that nicotine is bad for us. Sir Walter Raleigh brought it back with some potatoes, and we have known for hundreds of years that nicotine is an addictive drug. As I said previously, it will shorten your life expectancy by between 10 and 15 years. Because we know nicotine is in all nicotine-containing vapes, whether licit or illicit, it is harmful regardless of what the other components might be. It is likely that those other components add to the harm, but there is substantial and well-described harm from nicotine addiction to us as human beings.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Professor Turner: There is not a lot of research on that. Certainly, we know that if you are in utero and your mother is smoking, you will get the harmful effects of nicotine. That is a very good question—I honestly do not know what the effects on the unborn child would be. Certainly, we know that children born to parents who are addicted to morphine or cocaine have learning difficulties. I have to be honest and say that I might have to get back to you on that one, but I can assure you that it is not good to be in utero and exposed to nicotine.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Professor Hawthorne: We have known for a long time that passive smoking increases the risk of not just asthma, but upper respiratory tract infections and ear infections. It is very much part of a GP’s role when they are consulting with such patients coming in with these infections to ask about parental smoking. It is interesting that the responses are nearly always the same. If the parent smokes, they will always say, “But I only ever smoke outside.” Of course, one has to take that as it is, but I suspect that they are probably not always smoking outside. It is definitely a well-recognised link, but I am seeing it a bit less than I used to.
Everybody knows about the dangers of smoking. A lot of my patients, when I talk to them about needing to stop smoking, already know what I am saying. Quite often, I will say to them, “Well, you know what I am going to say next, don’t you?”, and they will say, “Yeah, I know. I need to stop smoking.” The conversation then proceeds from there.
We also have evidence that, in general practice consultations, a short intervention can be very effective. We know that people are very pressed for time, and there is only so much we can cover in a 10-minute appointment, especially if the patient is coming with three different problems. But there is good evidence that with even a very short intervention—I think in about 10% of cases—patients will actually stop smoking. It is always worth talking about, and if I get the time, I have a much longer spiel, because you need to think about the behavioural and addictive aspects of smoking. We go through, “When are you most likely to want to smoke? Is it after a meal, when you are on the phone or when you first get up in the morning?” We talk about what else they can do instead. I had one patient who went and dug the garden whenever she wanted to smoke. It is that kind of conversation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Professor Hawthorne: For adults, it is having that heart attack that maybe you could have avoided if you had stopped smoking before. Again, that is part of the conversation I have with patients. I say, “You are a heavy smoker, and you are at risk. Wouldn’t it be better if you stopped smoking before you have the heart attack, rather than after?” There are things like that, for sure.
We also operate a cycle of change psychological model—the Prochaska and DiClemente model. Essentially, it is a bit like having a clock face. We work out where the patient is on the clock face, and we are trying to get them round the clock to 12. If they are at somewhere like 2 o’clock, that is them saying, “Yeah, I know it is bad for me, but really no way am I going to do anything.” By 4 or 6 o’clock, they are saying, “Yeah, I know it is bad for me. I have tried a few times but it is just hopeless.” By quarter to, they are saying, “I’ve really got to do something”, and by five to, they are coming in and saying, “Doctor, you have to help me stop now.”
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Professor Hawthorne: Not necessarily. It is about pushing people psychologically around that clock face. I try to work out where they are on the clock face and see if I can nudge them a bit further round, until one day they come and say, “I’ve got to stop now. What can you do to help me?”
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Thank you.
Professor Turner: As Kamila says, there are myriad drivers—teachable moments. Sometimes, when your child is admitted to hospital with an asthma attack, that might be the thing that makes both parents say, “That’s it.” It might be that the grandmother says to her daughter, “You’ve got to stop for your child.” Legislation might also be one of those teachable moments that make people reflect on their 29 past unsuccessful attempts and think, “I’m going to do it again.” There is no one thing, but there are clearly teachable moments, as we all have when we change our behaviour. As I suggested, I think this legislation will be one of those.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Thank you very much. One last question: do you think the financial incentives for pregnant women and their partners would help?
Professor Turner: I think this is extremely contentious, but the evidence is that it does—sorry, you did ask me about pregnancy before. Pregnancy itself can be one of those opportunities to quit. Those parents who continue smoking—12% in Cumbria—feel terribly guilty. Anything we can do for that person, who has been addicted since she was 15 or 16, can help them to quit. There is no doubt—in Dundee, the trials have shown that, if you give mums incentives, in terms of vouchers rather than money, it helps them to quit, particularly if they are from deprived communities.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Professor Hawthorne: I am not a nicotine expert, but my understanding is that there is a risk from vaping, but it is about 5% of the risk from smoking. That is the best I can do in comparing the two. When I talk to patients about stopping smoking, vaping is one of the things we talk about as an alternative, with a view to eventually stopping vaping as well. Of course, there are all the other products: we use patches and chewing gum—all the usual things. It is difficult to quantify exactly how much less dangerous vaping is than smoking.
Professor Turner: Just to supplement that, as a user—if that is the right word—or a customer buying a vape, you can select the dose you want. There are doses that are equivalent to cigarettes and doses that you can wean yourself down on.
You asked whether we would be missing an opportunity if we do not introduce a smoke-free generation. I think we would absolutely be missing an opportunity. If we look back, the legislation on smoke-free public spaces across the UK was landmark. We all remember the days when you went on a plane and there was a smoking bit up front and a non-smoking bit at the back. If we were to go back and say there would be no smoking areas, we would think, “Wow, that would be transformational.” We have come on a journey, and the legislation has been part of it. I see a smoke-free generation as the logical next step, and I really think we have to take it.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Professor Turner: To me, smoking and nicotine are two sides of the same coin. Nicotine addiction is smoking.
The Chair
I just want to advise the panel that we have about 13 or 14 minutes to go, and four Members want to ask questions, so be kind to your colleagues.
Steve Tuckwell
Q
Professor Turner: That is a fair question. We recognise that there is a thriving illicit vape market, and the vaping industry is aware of that. As to whether the legislation will exaggerate that should it be passed, that is difficult to tell because, by definition, we do not know how much illegal activity there is. It is a reasonable consideration, and probably a lot of illicit vapes are already being sold. It is one of those things that you might consider when you vote, but I do not think the problem is sufficient to mean that the Bill should not go through.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Hawthorne: It is much more prevalent. There is a theory called future discounting. If you have few choices—if you do not have much money and much choice in what you eat, what you do and where you work—you do not think about your health in 20 years’ time; you think about today. Many people feel that smoking helps them get through the day, and that is what they do. It is a really difficult thing to talk to people about because some people will say to me, “I’ve just got to. I can’t get through my day otherwise.” I can say, “There are alternatives. There are other ways that we can help you get you through your day,” but you have to get them round the clock face that I was talking about, until the point comes when they say, “I’ve got to do it now.”
Nickie Aiken
Q
Professor Hawthorne: Do you mean as part of a smoking cessation programme?
Nickie Aiken
Yes, rather than having them sold as they are at the moment.
Professor Hawthorne: That is an interesting question. I prescribe nicotine patches; why should I not prescribe vapes? That would be my thought.
The Chair
I call Dr Caroline Johnson—you have all been so kind to one another, we are now ahead of time.
Dr Johnson
Q
Do children breathe in second-hand chemicals when they are proximal to adults vaping, or in an enclosed environment? If they do, what effect does that have on children’s lungs? Would you, or the royal college, support a ban on vaping in public places in a similar way that we currently ban smoking?
Professor Turner: I think that vaping in schools and school toilets is a big problem. First, it means that fire engines come out and that disrupts school. As you say, there are some children whose asthma will get set off by exposure to vapes, for example. So I think that it is a big problem, and you have already heard from schools. We are still not sure what components of the exhaled second-hand vape, if you will, are causing symptoms, but, as you described, that happens.
On your third question about banning vaping in public spaces, I would not have an opinion on that. If they are being used by people who are nicotine-addicted to help to come off their nicotine addictions, I would not be unhappy with that. Most of the second-hand vape is water vapour, but if you walk behind somebody who is vaping, you can tell what the taste is, so there are chemicals in there. I think that banning them in public spaces, at this point in time, is something that I would not have a strong opinion on.
Professor Hawthorne: I think we are on a journey, over the years, towards stopping smoking as a nation, so this Bill looks like a great step forward. I think that it is a landmark suggestion, and now that New Zealand has backtracked, I think we will be ahead of the game.
Professor Turner: And we have a proud record of doing this, from a legislative point of view.
Professor Hawthorne: Also, to some extent, sometimes, when you make a big step—which this is—you then might want to stop and wait, consolidate, check and gather more data before you make the next step.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings the morning’s session to an end. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon, here in the Boothroyd Room, to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Aaron Bell.)
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
Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip.
The debate over the future of Chatham docks has stirred strong emotions in our community. On one side, Peel Waters has proposed a residential-focused mixed-use development, but closer examination raises concerns about its sustainability and impact on our already thriving industries. The proposal has prompted legitimate worries about the quality of jobs, uncertainty surrounding investments and the overall environmental footprint, echoing sentiments that I have been expressing for several years.
In response to those concerns, I have been championing an alternative vision alongside the Save Chatham Docks campaign. It centres around the SPPARC Architecture masterplan, which sets out revitalisation focused on modern industrial space, emphasising job creation, economic growth and environmental sustainability—all essential for the future of the port’s activities. I appreciate the opportunity today to highlight that cause and to bring further information forward as to why saving the docks is the only sensible solution.
Chatham docks was part of the old Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham estate, which has stood proudly for 457 years.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Sir Philip, is it not normal to declare interests at the start of a debate? Is the right hon. Lady intending to make any such declarations?
Neil Coyle
Sir Philip, you may wish to explain the rules—but I think it is a requirement that where we have interests in a particular area, or a potential financial interest, we declare them before we comment on or speak to that issue. I again invite the right hon. Member to make any declarations that are relevant.
Kelly Tolhurst
I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on which financial interest he thinks I have.
Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. We can carry on this exchange, but it is for a Member to determine whether they have an interest to declare. If they decide they do not have an interest to declare, that is a matter for them. I do not know if that satisfies the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), but it is for the Member themselves to determine that.
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Sir Philip.
The dockyard has stood proudly for 457 years as a symbol of Medway’s economic backbone and our local heritage. On the banks of the River Medway, the docks embody the spirit of our community, connecting us to our past while paving the way to our future. Generations of families, including mine, can trace their stories alongside the history of Chatham docks. My mum’s family tells a familiar tale, with ancestors who have worked and served our country from those docks. Growing up in Medway meant always meeting people who shared similar connections—each a demonstration of the impact that the docks have had on generations across our community.
During its heyday, Chatham dockyard was the most important shipbuilding and repair dockyard in the country, contributing more than 500 ships to the Royal Navy and employing more than 10,000 skilled artisans. However, the closure of the Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham 40 years ago marked the end of an era, prompting a transformation that has been nothing short of remarkable.
The dockyard estate was split into three sections, and it has been revitalised into a mix of commercial, residential and leisure spaces. The establishment of Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust has ensured that a piece of our heritage remains accessible to all, serving as a living museum that educates visitors. It has played host to the sets of some of our favourite TV dramas and films.
English Estates took over another section of the old dockyard estate at the time, which is now host to basins 1 and 2 of the complex. Those have been formed into the Chatham Maritime Marina and a water sports facility, respectively, alongside significant retail and commercial office space. The northern section of the parcel is St Mary’s Island, which hosts a development and is now home to more than 5,000 residents.
Today, our focus lies on the third section—the easternmost—which surrounds basin 3 and is designated under Medway Ports Authority. It is a bustling commercial port and manufacturing hub that drives economic growth and offers fantastic opportunities for local businesses and residents. Basin 3 at Chatham docks is unique: it is the only non-tidal enclosed dock in Kent. It is regionally significant, as it plays a critical role in facilitating the transportation of vital materials to London and other regions across the UK in an environmentally sustainable way. Currently, it hosts nearly 20 businesses, and boasts a roster of notable multinational businesses such as ArcelorMittal, Aggregate Industries and European Active Projects Ltd, all of which have established UK bases within the port premises. In turn, they provide a number of high-quality jobs, particularly for local residents; they directly employ 795 people, including 750 full-time equivalent staff, and indirectly support an additional 1,500 jobs through the supply chain network. Those figures translated into a combined turnover of nearly £175 million in 2021.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Am I right in thinking that ArcelorMittal is the only tenant in basin 3 that has not agreed to relocate?
Kelly Tolhurst
My understanding is that there are other organisations operating within the port facility that want to stay where they are. Some have relocated because they unfortunately did not have another option; their leases meant that they were unable to stay.
The operations at Chatham docks span a diverse range of high-value industries. Materials and goods are brought in via water channels, undergo processing and manufacturing, and are subsequently exported.
Neil Coyle
Two of the companies that have been operating in Chatham docks for marine repairs are EAPL and Stick-Mig Welding. Does the right hon. Lady have anything to say about the relationship between Skipper Ltd and those two companies?
Kelly Tolhurst
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Skipper (UK) Ltd, which I am still a director of—and which has no customers or interests in Chatham docks or any of the businesses that operate in Chatham docks.
A sometimes overlooked aspect of the incumbent operations at Chatham docks is the strong commitment to nurturing talent. The array of apprenticeship programmes provides excellent avenues towards rewarding careers. In 2020 alone, 16 apprenticeship programmes offered 20 positions per 1,000 jobs, massively surpassing the Medway average of about nine apprenticeships for every 1,000 jobs. The investment in people not only benefits the individuals involved but strengthens the workforce of the entire region, offering high-quality careers that make a real difference.
Importantly, the jobs offered at Chatham docks provide above average wages, raising the median wage in Medway. The average annual earnings were £43,000 in 2023—nearly 9% higher than the Medway median wage. These positions serve as a crucial driver of economic stability, especially in an area where 13.5% of Medway’s workforce earn below two thirds of UK median pay as of 2021. It is clear that Chatham docks are absolutely essential for the local population. In 2019, it was found that 20% of its workers lived in the Chatham docks three-digit postcode—ME1—and 45% across Medway.
The economic significance of the docks extends beyond direct employment and wages: it contributes significantly to the regional economy, accounting for more than 4% of Medway’s gross value added and generating approximately £89 million in GVA annually. In addition to its economic contribution, Chatham docks also plays a vital role in generating tax revenues, which contribute essential funding for local services and infrastructure. The annual tax revenues are estimated to range between £27 million and £36 million, and the annual business rates payments are about £2 million. Those revenues also provide financial resources to support the community.
The main issue at hand, and my reason for calling this debate, is the progress of Peel Waters’ attempt to end the use of Chatham docks as a commercial port, displacing the businesses within it, with the loss of high-quality jobs. Peel Waters has a vision to implement a residential-led, mixed-use development across the site. It has been over a decade since Peel Waters first set its sights on the redevelopment of Chatham docks, and started to redevelop part of the land. Its 2013 application initially boasted that development of Chatham Waters would provide 3,549 permanent jobs once fully developed, or 2,418 net additional jobs, with an associated GVA of around £92.4 million.
The projections suggested a substantial boost to both employment and the local economy. Looking deeper into the plans as time progressed, however, all is not as it seemed. The 2013 planning statement provided a more specific breakdown of the employment that would be delivered. It showed a significant proportion of projections included employment for retail and hospitality. For the projected 764 jobs as part of phase 1, 400 to 450 would be provided at the Asda retail food store, 40 to 50 at the pub and 20 at a coffee shop. I have long championed the hospitality industry, but this would be a stark contrast to the jobs that they would replace from the manufacturing, construction and transport industries.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, which I appreciate, so that I can better understand the specifics of the case. My understanding is that the local plan has not been updated since 2003. Can she give us her view on why that is the case? Why have previous Medway Council administrations not brought that plan up to date to set out a viable and feasible dock retention policy?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right that Medway Council is out of a local plan. The previous local plan, which is occasionally referred to regarding planning applications, clearly designates Chatham docks as a commercial rather than residential area—hence my campaign, with others across the Medway towns, to demand and ensure that Chatham docks remains a commercial site, rather than a residential-led development.
Peel has also claimed that, on completion, 2,701 jobs will be in office space. Without the density specified, that would pose a risk of under-utilisation of the available area. Independent analysis revealed that in reality we have seen a shortfall in job creation, with around only 200 full-time jobs materialising since the plans were first introduced more than 14 years ago. That represents 26% of phase 1 jobs estimates and 6% of the total jobs promised across the whole of the Chatham Waters development—a far cry from the lofty estimates put forward.
It transpired that in 2019 Peel had desires to redevelop the Chatham docks site into primarily residential areas. The updated plan was led by 3,600 homes and claimed it would support over 2,000 jobs on site. Although the shift towards housing development appeals to Medway Council’s housing targets, it raises concern about the potential impact on existing jobs and industries at the docks.
It has been clear that Medway’s housing targets have been disproportionately affecting my constituency of Rochester and Strood. Over the past 15 years, we have seen delivery of thousands of new homes, with thousands more in the pipeline for my constituency, while sites such as Chatham docks are now at risk due to Medway’s focus on meeting targets. We require a more strategic approach to housing development, focusing on suitable locations with adequate infrastructure.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with these important sites, it is crucial to respect the character of the surrounding area in deciding what is to be built? In particular, there is a need for larger family homes, but many developments of this sort seem focused almost entirely on small flats.
Kelly Tolhurst
My right hon. Friend is right that one concern around developments such as this is that the focus is on number and units of flats, as opposed to delivering the type of accommodation that local people in the Medway towns desire in the locations. The numbers are a challenge, but the type of accommodation is just as important.
Rochester and Strood have spearheaded Medway’s efforts to meet housing demand, but Medway’s annual target, calculated using the standard methodology, remains at 1,667 new homes, culminating in 28,339 homes by 2040. Currently, the council has plans for 7,583 homes in the pipeline, with an additional 3,000 windfall sites predicted, which means the council faces the task of finding suitable locations for just over 19,000 additional homes. Unfortunately, Medway Council has cited the need to reach those targets as the reason why a unique, regionally important infrastructure asset such as Chatham docks is even being considered as part of the local plan process.
There is now a live application for part of the site currently occupied by ArcelorMittal that proposes to replace its operation with a different type of commercial space. This move aims to shift existing commercial activity, but signals a broader trend that could lead to the displacement of crucial industries and jobs. Sadly, in my view the application is the thin end of the wedge, threatening to pave the way for the loss of important industries, high-value jobs and the ability of the commercial port industries’ use of basin 3. The application is just the beginning, setting the stage for Peel’s larger plan to develop a large number of residential units across the site.
Following the campaign by fellow Conservative MPs urging the Government to initiate a consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities responded by amending the NPPF, notably by clarifying housing targets to be an advisory starting point rather than being mandatory, thereby promising positive outcomes for communities where there was robust evidence to support a difference. The new NPPF introduces several key provisions aimed at making local planning processes more effective and responsive to community needs. First, it empowers local authorities by giving them greater flexibility to address housing requirements specific to their area. That means they can tailor solutions to fit local circumstances rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
The framework emphasises the importance of maintaining the character of a local area by preventing densities that would be “wholly out of character”. That helps to safeguard the integrity of local plans and ensures that new developments complement them rather than distract from the existing surroundings. Additionally, the NPPF introduces measures to help councils to resist speculative housing developments, giving them more control over how their communities grow. It also outlines criteria for when alternative approaches can be justified, ensuring that decisions are made with careful consideration of exceptional circumstances.
For local planning authorities, the changes mean a renewed focus on accurately assessing and meeting local housing need and on gathering robust evidence to support decisions. Although they are required to use a standard methodology for determining housing need, they have the flexibility to adjust plans according to local constraints and needs. That flexibility allows targets to be fine-tuned to reflect specific local circumstances, whether that means preserving the character of neighbourhoods or protecting green spaces. Ultimately, the reforms strike a balance between national objectives and local priorities.
In the light of the changes, Medway Council has an opportunity to produce a local plan that fits the needs of our community. Given the adjustments, Medway Council should reconsider the plans for Chatham docks. By prioritising the preservation of our commercial port and protecting jobs and an infrastructure asset that has national importance, we can sustain the local economy and its future development. The economic significance of businesses at Chatham docks should not be underestimated and destroyed. The area needs this type of industry and employment.
The lock gates, which allow access into basin 3 via the River Medway, have long been cited by Peel as a stumbling block to Chatham docks’ future economic viability, claiming that the cost of repairs or replacement is prohibitive. That assertion is refuted by surveyors and tenants who, based on studies carried out, believe that with a proper maintenance and renewal programme an ongoing commercial port operation has the capacity to flourish.
An important but often overlooked factor when considering the cost implications of repairs to the lock gates is the water management agreement, which has been in place since the initial split of the dockyard estate into the distinct areas described earlier. It governs the management of water flow through basins 1, 2 and 3, as well as access for naval vessels to basin 2 from the river. It was only back in 2019 that we welcomed the new HMS Medway to Chatham. Peel has a responsibility and the obligation remains, as outlined in the deeds, to maintain the lock gates as the custodians of the asset, whatever the future of the site.
The current closure of the gates is significantly affecting businesses within basin 3. Moreover, the blockage of salt water flow through the basin complex directly affects the water quality in basin 2, where the Chatham Maritime Trust, of which I am a trustee, operates a water sports centre. I am concerned that compromised water quality could render the basin unsuitable for such activities in future.
A clear example of one of the most successful businesses based at Chatham docks is the principal tenant, ArcelorMittal, which has called it home since 1988. Its presence at the docks speaks volumes of how it values their strategic location. The company is dedicated to the docks, and has further shown its engagement by commissioning Volterra Partners to conduct an independent socioeconomic assessment, which has evaluated whether there is a case to support ArcelorMittal’s future and the viability of investment in basin 3.
As the second largest steel producer in the world, ArcelorMittal supplies approximately 30% of the UK’s steel reinforcement and is a leading wire rod manufacturer in the UK, with influence extending far beyond Medway. Its involvement in landmark projects, ranging from Crossrail to the Shard and from Heathrow terminal 5 to the London Stadium, has marked its imprint on the iconic skyline of the UK. As London gears up for massive infrastructure investments totalling £27 billion until 2032-33, ArcelorMittal stands ready to supply the essential materials required in those ambitious projects.
ArcelorMittal relies heavily on water transport, sourcing around 85% of its steel through that method, primarily from overseas locations such as ports in Hamburg. To be clear, this is an operation that cannot simply be located to an inland site. ArcelorMittal has made it clear that should it lose its Chatham docks site, it would be forced to shift its operations entirely to continental Europe, to the detriment of the region and the national economy.
It should also be noted that shipping products produce far less emissions than transporting the equivalent via heavy goods vehicles and certainly when transported by aircraft. Maintaining and potentially expanding operations in the area would therefore be environmentally preferable to a total shutdown, given the transport emission savings. The commitment to sustainability is evident in ArcelorMittal’s production methods, with more than 98% of its steel reinforcements made from recycled scrapped steel. Its embracing of innovative technologies such as hydrogen also leads the way towards greener practices for steel production.
In recognising the importance of the location, ArcelorMittal is committed to expansion and enhancements. Currently, £5 million of inward investment is on hold, with a potential additional £20 million, pending the approval of the SPPARC masterplan. Although ArcelorMittal is the largest tenant at Chatham docks, it is just one of the many examples of successful businesses that make up the thriving commercial dockyard and manufacturing hub.
I have long been a supporter of the campaign to save Chatham docks. Back in 2021 I held an Adjournment debate on the issue, using the platform to highlight the thriving businesses already operating at the docks. Then, in summer 2022, the alternative vision from the Save Chatham Docks campaign was launched, laying out plans to ensure its long-term viability.
Key components of the SPPARC masterplan include a riverfront route, the green buffer zone and a port facility upgrade, all aimed at revitalising the area and attracting new opportunities. The anticipated impact of the masterplan is staggering, with projections suggesting the creation of up to 2,570 full-time job equivalents, while safeguarding the high-value, high-skilled jobs that exist today. That would result in a significant boost in worker expenditure, estimated at between £2.4 million and £4.2 million annually.
Furthermore, with the improvements proposed in the masterplan we could see a substantial increase in the amount of materials transported by sea freight, potentially reaching 600,000 tonnes per year, which would translate into a direct economic output of £119 million to £177 million, equivalent to 18% to 27% of Medway’s total GVA in the manufacturing sector.
The masterplan is all about unlocking the potential on the site, ushering in a new era of prosperity. The potential tax generation it could bring is also worth noting, with projected annual tax revenues estimated to rise to an amount between £36 million and £71 million, providing vital funding for essential services. Additionally, the influx of businesses could generate another £6.1 million per year in business rate payments, which would offer much-needed relief to Medway Council’s financial position.
The masterplan is not just about figures and statistics, though: it represents hopes and opportunities for people in Medway and the surrounding areas. It is a shot at creating a better tomorrow, not just for now but for future generations in my community.
Beyond the immediate concerns lie the environmental implications. As an island nation, nearly 95% of the UK’s imports and exports are transported by water, and Chatham plays a huge part in that. Approximately 85% of the materials imported into Chatham docks are transported by sea freight, contributing significantly to the reduction of carbon emissions. Analysis has shown that in 2019 the use of sea freight at the docks resulted in a saving of approximately 9,100 tonnes of CO2 emissions compared with emissions from heavy goods vehicles. That is equivalent to about 13,000 lorry trips.
If the docks were redeveloped in a way that shifted waterborne transport on to our roads, it would pose a significant environmental risk, in turn worsening air quality and potentially making Chatham one of the worst-affected areas in the UK outside central London. That would be a step in the completely wrong direction when it comes to the progress we are making on our emissions and the path to net zero.
National Highways has also raised concerns about the transport impacts stemming from the consequential increased use of heavy goods vehicles, particularly concerning the safety, reliability and operational efficiency of the M2 strategic road network. I too am concerned by that, and further concerned by the knock-on effects that it would have on local traffic and road conditions—issues that have already posed real difficulties in our area.
Local opposition to Peel Waters’ plan has been robust, with countless constituents contacting me on the topic and Medway residents and Chatham docks employees sending in over 170 letters of rejection to the current live application. I have been overwhelmed by not only the local support but the support from businesses and groups in other parts of the country. It makes no sense that such high-quality jobs, valuable industry and infrastructure assets could be lost in the pursuit of short-term profit for organisations. These industries are important now and will remain so in the future.
We cannot prioritise the short-term profits of developers over our community’s livelihoods and existing industries. The recent amendments to the NPPF that make housing targets advisory and allow more flexibility for local authorities should mean that Medway Council is under less pressure to develop a housing development at Chatham docks, and I hope that it, too, can see the importance of preserving the commercial port for our long-term local economy.
Local opposition to Peel Waters underscores the community’s strong desire to preserve the docks’ heritage, protect high-quality jobs and ensure sustainable development. We owe it to our community, the workers and the future generations as we approach these challenges and make sure that we save Chatham docks.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Philip. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on securing this important debate. I know that a great many of her constituents value immensely the contribution that Chatham docks has made to Medway over many decades. I recognise that there is a general desire among them for greater clarity on the future of the site as a whole and the jobs linked to it, including, but not confined to, the 18-acre basin 3 plot that is the subject of this debate.
Constrained as I feel I am from delving into the fine detail of what is a live planning application, I will take a step back and place the debate in a wider context. As we all know, previously developed brownfield land is a finite resource and subject to competing demands when it comes to future use. The intense competition for such land in urban areas and the ever-present tension between economic and residential uses that results is precisely why a brownfield-first approach to development, which Government and Opposition agree on in principle, cannot mean a brownfield-only one, and it is why the current plot-by-plot approach to development will never be sufficient to meet total housing need across England. It is precisely because the Opposition recognise that the shortage of employment land is a growing concern that, although we are determined to improve on the Government’s lacklustre record when it comes to brownfield build-out rates, we intend to take a more strategic approach to planning in terms of both green-belt land release and planning for many more large-scale new communities, whether new towns or urban extensions, so that we are better able to sustain housing and employment growth across the country.
As things stand, the Government’s persistent failure to support local communities to accommodate housing growth strategically either by means of the development of major sites in their boundaries or through cross-boundary, strategic growth in co-operation with neighbouring authorities forces local planning authorities to wrestle with competing demands for employment and residential uses on the limited brownfield sites available to them.
Theresa Villiers
Many of my constituents are really worried about the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that he proposes to ignore the views of local communities in determining what gets built. Will the shadow Minister distance himself from those comments?
Matthew Pennycook
We certainly will not ignore the views of residents when it comes to planning proposals. However, it is fair to say—this is partly why I find the yimby/nimby debate incredibly reductive—that there is a core of people in the country who do not want development—
Matthew Pennycook
I will answer the previous intervention, then I will happily give way.
There is a core of people in the country who do not want development of any kind near them under any circumstances, and we have to take those people on and do so with conviction. There is a much wider group of people who oppose bad development in their constituencies, and we must change the offer of what development means, but that cannot mean that development does not take place. I will address the point on housing targets if it comes up later in the debate.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. However, I would like to pull him up on the point he made about the nimby debate. I want to be clear that this is about the future and jobs. The hon. Gentleman may remember that he wrote to me representing his constituents, who were also concerned about the operations at Chatham docks, because I believe that he has constituents who work there.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I did indeed write to her; it is a small number, but I have a few constituents who work at Chatham docks. As I said in opening my remarks, I very much recognise the existing concerns about the future of the sites and the jobs linked to them. To clarify what I said, I did not condemn nimbys in the debate: I said that we need to move beyond the incredibly reductive debate between yimbys and nimbys. There is a far more nuanced position out there. As I said, there are people who oppose development under any circumstances, and we are clear that we will take them on. There is a wider group of people who oppose bad development, and we must change the offer to them.
Theresa Villiers
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he acknowledge that the vast majority of people expressing views about development proposals accept that we need new housing, but we just need the right homes in the right places?
Matthew Pennycook
I take issue with the right hon. Lady on the idea—I think that phrase is used too often to obscure what I think is her real position, to be fair to her—that her local authority should be able to plan for less housing than the standard method that the target implies. We take the opposite view; we have a very legitimate difference of opinion here. We do not think that local authorities should be able to plan for under-housing need targets, and that is where the difference comes on the NPPF changes. It is not a question of whether there should be good development. Yes, we must change what the offer of development means, but it cannot be the case, as the right hon. Lady so often advocates, that no development takes place because of the characteristics of a local area or many other attributes that local authorities can now use as a result of the NPPF to come in under target. That is a clear difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition.
I will return to the argument I was making. Like many other councils across England, Medway Council now confronts a dilemma with this brownfield site as a result of the nature of the housing and planning system over which the Government preside. First, through changes to national planning policy, Ministers have ensured that there is no effective mechanism for sub-regional strategic planning that might enable what is a relatively small unitary authority in Medway to meet housing need in a co-ordinated manner. That could have been done through a joint plan with neighbouring two-tier authorities in north Kent, as the historic south-east regional spatial strategy did with the Kent Thames Gateway.
Secondly, because central Government support has not been forthcoming, the number of viable potential sites within Medway Council’s own boundaries has narrowed. The most pertinent example is the Government’s decision to withdraw from the authority £170 million in housing infrastructure grant funding that would have facilitated the construction of 10,000 homes over 30 years on the Hoo peninsula, despite the Department seemingly not having spent £2.9 billion of the £4.2 billion allocated by the Treasury to that fund. As a result, Medway Council now must determine alone how it meets its housing targets across the sites that remain available and viable. As I said, we take the view that they must meet those targets.
The challenge I put to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, leaving aside the considerations of investment required in the docks to bring it up to a viable operation in the future, is for those who take the position that it should remain a working port to identify the collection of sites across Medway that will ensure the authority can build 29,844 homes—the numbers have been slightly updated since the ones she cited were published—between now and 2040, because that is what it will take to meet housing need in that particular authority.
Medway Council proposes—quite rightly, in our view—to make that determination in a considered manner through the local plan development process. I very much welcome the fact that the present leadership of the authority have restarted the process and are working at pace to complete it. The pattern of indecision and delay that characterised the approach of previous Conservative administrations to planning and development in Medway over two decades was lamentable as, it must be said, is the Government’s record on boosting local plan coverage across England more generally. It is frankly laughable that, despite the extensive range of powers to intervene that Ministers enjoy, the Government are presiding over a local plan-led planning system in which only a third of authorities—and falling—have a plan that is less than five years old, with the number of plans published, submitted and adopted last year the lowest for a decade.
The local plan-making process in Medway is now firmly underway, and I do not think it is for Members in this place to pre-empt its outcome, but it is worth remarking that Medway Council obviously cannot prohibit Peel Waters from submitting a proposal for mixed-use development on the wider Chatham docks site as part of the local plan preparation process, in the same way that the authority cannot force that developer to make the necessary investment that might sustain the docks as a working commercial port. Just as the contents of the developing draft local plan are ultimately a decision for Medway Council itself, considering not only how to meet housing need but how other economic, social and environmental priorities can be addressed, so is the determination of the basin 3 application submitted for the present industrial state to be redeveloped for employment facilities.
As such, while I certainly appreciate that concerns exist about the employment opportunities changing on the site in question, and whether all the sitting tenants will agree to be relocated or compensated, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the application, just as I know the Minister will not be able to discuss details of the proposal, given the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in the planning system.
To conclude, the case of Chatham docks reinforces our strong belief that we need to make changes to the planning system to ensure that the Government take a more strategic approach to development across the country, thereby enabling local planning authorities to better balance competing priorities regarding brownfield regeneration. It also highlights the pressing need to do more to boost local plan coverage. An up-to-date local plan is the most effective means of influencing where and how development takes place in any given authority area for both the housing and jobs that communities need.
The situation is lamentable, and many of the problems we are discussing stem from the fact that the authority has not updated its plan since 2003. Much of the uncertainty that the constituents of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood are feeling about the future of Chatham docks would be significantly abated had previous Medway Council administrations prepared and adopted an up-to-date local plan with a robust and viable proposal for the site—the present administration finally doing so is to be commended. It is the elected members of that authority who are best placed through engagement and consultation with the local community to take decisions on local planning matters, including in due course the basin 3 application.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on securing this debate. I thank her for the opportunity to be able to talk—in the limited way that I am able to—about the importance of the Medway towns, and getting planning right in them and in her constituency of Rochester and Strood over the years ahead.
My right hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. We have spoken on a regular basis since I have taken this portfolio, so I know how strongly she rightly feels about ensuring planning is as right as it can be in the area. She strongly advocates for her constituents and for how important it is to get planning right. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) indicated, it is now Labour members who have the opportunity to make progress with those specific local plans. Given their variation of views in the last few months alone, that does not bode well. However, we wish them well, because we all want them to get it right, and we hope that they will do so, even if their current record does not indicate that this is very likely.
The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood highlighted not only what a strong advocate she is for her constituency but the huge importance of this issue from a historical perspective. She talked about her background and those of many of her constituents in the area. As someone who shares that link with my constituency, I know how important it is that representation is brought to this place, and my right hon. Friend did that in this debate, as well as in others before.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood appreciates, and as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated, there are limits to what I can say. There are some things that I can say and some I cannot. The Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have a quasi-judicial role within the planning system, which means there is the potential for all planning applications to come to us for final decision, so it is both inappropriate and incorrect for us to talk about individual planning applications. Thus, I am unable to talk about the specifics of the planning application today. I know that my right hon. Friend knows that and appreciates the point I am making.
When I have had debates like this in my constituency, I used to be frustrated by that answer, but it is a necessary one and one that we must honour to ensure that we do not prejudice anything that may come in the future. None the less, I hope I can say a few things about the general position and about planning. In order to enter them into the record, I will say a few things about the national planning policy framework, and the overall framework, not least because the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has made a number of assertions, which I will come on to in a moment.
The Government set the legislative and policy framework, including the NPPF, within which the planning system operates. Local planning authorities, as has been outlined today, are responsible for preparing a plan, then for making decisions that align with that plan. In doing that, they interpret the national policy and guidance, which is primarily generated through the NPPF, within the legislation and then according to local circumstances.
The stated and avowed purpose of the planning system in this country is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development that considers economic, societal, social and environmental objectives. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding developments towards sustainable solutions, but they must and should take into account local circumstances and reflect the local character, needs and opportunities of each area. We recognise that Rochester and Strood is very different from North East Derbyshire, as it is from Chipping Barnet and from Greenwich and Woolwich, which is why it is correct that local politicians lead planning within a broad national framework that the Government of the day set out.
We have talked in much of this debate about the importance of economic development and about protecting commercial activity. The NPPF also sets out the importance of planning for economic development. Planning policies and decisions should help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. That is why the NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support growth and productivity, taking account of both business needs and wider opportunities for development. As hon. Members have outlined, the NPPF was last revised in December 2023 following a consultation process. The changes that we made try to support our objectives of creating a planning system that delivers the new homes we need while taking into account the important areas, assets or local characteristics that should be protected or respected.
Theresa Villiers
One of the important changes in the new NPPF is the affirmation that councils should not be forced to build at densities that are significantly out of character with the surrounding area. Can the Minister tell the House how that is operating in practice and what difference it is making to developments such as the one we are debating today and others around the country?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. As she rightly outlines, we made a number of changes to the NPPF, including one to indicate that the character of an area is important to consider within any future local planning. As she will appreciate, local plans often take several years to come through, so we revised the framework a number of months ago. We have been clear that councils should seek to move quicker when they need to. We have asked a number of councils to provide timetables for getting to the endpoint, and we will closely monitor what is happening in the months ahead not just on the point about character, which is important, but on the other changes that we made. We made changes about the potential for local councils to look at alternative methods to assess their needs, the importance of beauty within a system, support for small sites and community-led developments, and greater protections for agricultural land. One of the reasons for the debate today is that, as we all know, the planning system is not perfect, but trying to balance all those individual areas is important.
As a constituency MP who went through an extremely difficult time with local planning a number of years ago—down to the Labour party, which failed our area for many years because it was too unwilling, unable and incompetent to ever put a local plan in place, creating over 1,000 more houses than was necessary—I have seen the pain caused by not doing local plans in a timely manner. I know how important it is to think through the implications that plans have for the local community and the consequences of not making decisions. I appreciate the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Rochester and Strood.
Before concluding, I will turn to a number of points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend for Rochester and Strood has made a clear case for the position that she and many of her constituents have adopted. I know that she made that case over a number of parliamentary debates before I came into post, and she will continue to make it. We have spoken about the importance of getting planning in Medway into a better place that works for people. As we have just mentioned, the Labour party is now in charge. It owns the situation and it has the choices. It made a series of cases to the electorate a number of months ago, and now it has to work through that.
Matthew Pennycook
For the purposes of clarity for anyone watching, will the Minister confirm that when Medway submits its draft local plan, even under the revised NPPF, the standard method is the starting point, and the authority cannot just move away from the standard method number because it feels it is too high? It has to reason why it is moving away from it, and if it does not reason that appropriately and robustly, the plan will fail upon challenge at the examination stage of the process, will it not? So if the authority is going to move away from it, it has to reason how it will meet housing need, even though it is an advisory starting point, and any move away has to be robustly justified. It cannot be because the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood feels that the targets are too high, as she seems to suggest.
Lee Rowley
I am currently in discussion with Medway. We have sent correspondence to indicate that the authority needs to move, so I will not prejudice the outcome of that. The Labour party in Medway, as it does elsewhere in the country, stood on a particular perspective last year. It won legitimately and it now has to deliver. I hope that it can deliver the commitments and promises that it made to the people of Medway and of Rochester and Strood, knowing full well the frameworks within which the planning system operates, because that is what it promised and should endeavour to do.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we talk on a regular basis about the many elements of planning—
Lee Rowley
Far too many, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In doing so, we are definitely aware of each other’s differing positions, and he is right to highlight those. In that spirit, I want to tease out a number of those differing positions, because they demonstrate how, for a party that is so keen to indicate that it is ready for Government, when we look under the bonnet at the actual detail, it is not there, and the plans are not where they need to be for the general election later this year.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make changes to the planning system. He is right; that is why we made changes to the planning system back in December. That is why we have tried to strike that balance and ensure that there is greater control for local authorities, but recognising that we still have to build houses in the right places across the country to support our increasing population. He is right that we need development, but if we look at examples of where Labour is in power, rather than Labour talking, it consistently underdelivers on housing. The Mayor of London has consistently under- delivered on his own targets for a number of years, primarily because of the 500-plus page London plan that furs up, screws up and messes around with people being about to deliver housing in London. That is a great example of where Labour talks the talk but does not walk the walk in ensuring not only that people are protected, but that we build the houses people need. I hope that when people look closely at the planning policies of the major two parties, they will recognise that Labour, when it actually has the opportunity to do things, consistently fails to do what it talks about.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about a difference of opinion between ourselves, and he is correct about the sometimes reductive nature of the discussion. I absolutely agree with him and share that view. Where we disagree and differ is that the nuance needs to go over into individual policies, including the NPPF. The NPPF issued in December seeks to inject that nuance, strike that balance and recognise that we have to build more houses, but we have to build them in the right places. It seeks to do the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, such as to talk about the local character of an area and to ensure that alternative processes can be considered for defining housing need or explicitly talking about beauty. Next time the boss of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich gets the copy and paste out when taking some of our policies and passing them off as their own, but providing no further detail about how they would change them, I hope he will consider that.
Lee Rowley
I will give way after one more gentle point, if I may. Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s statement around the approach of the Government on brownfield building, we have been clear over the past few months about the importance of focusing on brownfield. He is right that it is impossible for it to be brownfield only all of the time, forever more with no changes, but what he fails in his otherwise useful remarks to accept is that brownfield often comes with costs. If he is talking about moving even more into wholesale on brownfield than we are doing, encouraging and pushing, the question is, where are his cheques coming from? I am keen to hear from him.
Matthew Pennycook
What I would say to the Minister is to first spend the money that is allocated to the Department by the Treasury, which it is failing to do. Leaving aside the point about brownfield, I put to him that he is trying to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that we have to build the houses; on the other, they have to be in the right places and right locations. What is actually happening on the ground in terms of the immediate outcome of the NPPF changes that this Government have driven through is that scores of local planning authorities across the country are revising local plans and revising down housing targets. Just a few weeks ago, South Staffordshire Council reduced its housing numbers by 46% off the back of the revised local plans. The outcome of what the Government have driven through—for all the rhetoric—is policies that will see the numbers of consents and houses built reduced, moving the Government even further away from that target of 300,000 a year that they have not once managed to achieve in 14 years in office.
Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I have shown a huge amount of latitude to both Front Benchers about this. I appreciate that it is the local elections tomorrow in many places and that we may well be in a general election year. However, I just remind everybody that this is a debate specifically about Chatham docks basin 3 rather than a ding-dong about who has the best planning policies per se. I think it is appropriate for me to say that. As I say, I think I have given quite enough latitude for discussion of other issues, but if we could get back to the subject of the debate, I would appreciate it.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the clear steer from the Chair and I appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Philip, so I will seek to take greater care with my excitement and interest in talking about housing policy more generally.
It is probably important that I sum up and come back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood has made. This has been a useful debate. Although I am obviously limited in what I can say regarding individual cases and individual planning applications, I think the debate has demonstrated the strength of commitment to trying to get planning right across the country, including in specific areas such as the Medway towns, and the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood to her constituency, both in trying to make planning on progress and more broadly.
The Government have a long-term plan for housing that seeks to build more houses, but we also seek to build houses in the right places. I know that my right hon. Friend, in securing this debate today, in the speech that she gave and in highlighting the importance of getting planning right for her constituents, is working exactly within that spirit of building more homes and building them in the right places.
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Sir Philip, for calling me to wind up. I thank the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for the time he has spared to talk to me prior to this debate. He has been very generous with his time when I have brought to his attention issues that particularly affect my constituency. I also totally understand his unique position in relation to what he was able to say in this debate today. I am sure that he has heard what I have said in this debate and understood the principles that I have tried to outline, and I am grateful for his continued interest in the planning and development of the Medway towns.
I will just pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). It was disappointing to hear from him today that Labour has decided not to be as robust as before in its support of Chatham docks. That has been borne out locally with the local council and my hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the definite change in position by Labour that has been expressed.
It is not my view that the housing targets are not correct; actually, the standard methodology can be calculated in a number of different ways. My argument has always been that I do not agree with the displacement of a major, regionally significant piece of infrastructure, and with it jobs—high-skilled jobs—in industries that can contribute importantly to a local area, and for it to be wiped out in the pursuit of profit for landowners who want to build flats, which I have to say will be used to accommodate London’s failure to deliver on its housing supply, because most of the new developments within my constituency are not being taken up by local residents.
I also want to mention the importance of robust evidence. For me and I think for my local community, robust evidence in plan-making or in any planning application is key. We hope that Medway Council will actually deliver such robust evidence, rather than worrying about how many houses it will build in my constituency, which I reiterate has absolutely been playing its part in reducing the burden that exists and delivering on housing numbers, with the amount of new development that is going on within it. I would like to see such robust evidence being used to support the process of deciding where development sites across my constituency will be located. And I believe that there is robust evidence to support Chatham docks remaining as a commercial entity rather than being used to build flats.
Finally—I want to be clear about this—the businesses operating in Chatham docks are there because it is a non-tidal basin. The River Medway has a 6 metre fall and rise, and therefore a non-tidal basin is massively important for any kind of water-based activity. If certain businesses cannot operate in the docks in the future, they will not be relocated down the river or to an inland facility; they will be displaced and will not operate in the Medway towns any longer. That would have a direct impact on the number of people who are employed.
I am supporting the workers in my constituency, but unfortunately I have yet to see the leader of Medway Council honour the commitment he made when he stood outside with me waving a banner saying, “Save Chatham Docks”. He said that Labour is the party of workers.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her support in planning matters. She made some great contributions and understands fully some of the challenges that I experience in my constituency. I very much welcome her support and her contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.
Financial Conduct Authority: Accountability
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the accountability of the Financial Conduct Authority.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Philip. I welcome the Minister to his place. I know that he has an interest in these issues, and I hope that this debate will be a productive exercise for us all.
It may be worth explaining a little bit about how I came to be interested in the FCA. I probably speak more about fishing than financial services in this House, but the FCA came to my attention as a consequence of constituents who I have been helping. They were victims of a Ponzi scheme, and they lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a consequence of fraud. The perpetrator was sentenced to 14 years, later reduced to 10 years, in the High Court of Justiciary.
On no fewer than three occasions, the FCA, or the Financial Services Authority as it was initially, failed to read the warning signs and take action. As a consequence, that was allowed to continue. Had it acted at the first available opportunity, there would have been only one victim of Alistair Greig, rather than hundreds.
As is often the case with these matters, a handful of people were determined to fight, but they were rebuffed at every turn. They were told, “No, this is nothing to do with us. It is not a matter of regulation; it is a question of the creation of a principal and of an agent,” and the rest of it. They took court action, which cost them £2 million, and they lost, but eventually the FCA was forced to put them into the financial services compensation scheme, which gave most of them compensation, albeit capped at £85,000. One of my constituents was out for £130,000, so he is £45,000 down and has suffered a further loss as a consequence of the fact that he was one of the brave souls who was party to the court action. The 95 people who were behind that court action are now left with a bill of almost £2 million.
Notwithstanding the fact that this is a consequence of the way that the FCA has gone about its business, it wishes to have no further part in any discussions with the people who were affected. I organised the screening of a documentary in the House a few weeks ago. Even the judge who heard their case turned up. I have never heard of this happening before, but the Financial Conduct Authority did not want to know. No one from the organisation was prepared to come to this House, sit in a room for an hour with the people whose lives had been most dramatically affected by their decisions, look them in the eye and explain what they had done.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is outlining a very concerning story. When many hon. Members think about the FCA, including me as an MP from the 2019 intake, it is in relation to its legislative authority for ensuring the changes on access to cash. Does he agree that ensuring that people get the right support so that communities have the access to cash that they deserve is a real concern?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, as I hope will become clear as my remarks develop, the way that the FCA is going about its duties at the moment is working for nobody. It is clearly not working for the communities most directly involved, for the financial services sector or for members of the public such as my constituents, who have been left to beat their head against a brick wall for years in their dealings with the FCA.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wholeheartedly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that, for many of us who have brought constituents’ financial issues to the FCA over the years, the FCA often appears to be a barrier rather than a help for the ordinary man or woman? Let us be honest, that perception needs to be altered by a seismic shift in how the FCA engages. I know he feels the frustration that all hon. Members present feel.
Mr Carmichael
I am delighted and relieved to see the hon. Gentleman in his place; he is absolutely right. The engagement of the average constituent—I am legally qualified, but I include myself in that—with the financial services sector is often a matter of supreme consequence. Very often, they have to rely on the judgment and expertise of the people with whom they are dealing, who are regulated by the FCA. That is why this matters for all of us.
The parallels with the Post Office are unavoidable. It is the same situation time and again: a well-resourced public body decides to deny, deny, deny until eventually people have to give in. That worked for the Post Office, although we were able to break through it. That is just one of the most egregious examples. Lower down the food chain, where fewer people are affected, including my constituents, it is much more difficult for anybody to get justice.
That is how I became interested in the first place. As is often the case, when one starts to lift rocks, what is underneath takes one off in other directions. I am afraid that I have found little under any rock that I have lifted to make me think there is anything in the FCA at the moment about which we should be happy or optimistic.
The FCA is consulting on proposals to change its enforcement code. Essentially, it is talking about naming and shaming much earlier people who have become a subject of concern. That has to be viewed in the context of its performance: an average FCA investigation takes at least four years. In 65% of cases referred to it, no further action is taken. For such an industry, the reputational consequences of naming and shaming at such an early stage could be catastrophic. The people most directly affected are not the big City firms, because they are big enough to withstand the damage, but the small and medium-sized enterprises, for which the FCA does not demonstrate the level of concern that it should.
A report by Spotlight on Corruption in February showed that 90% of the value of fines against directors in the financial services sector was levelled against directors in SMEs, and only 2% against senior executives in large companies. It is part of the culture that the regulator seems to be staffed and driven by people in the big City firms, who seem to get a different level of service and, dare I say, protection than the SMEs. That matters in relation to the enforcement code changes because there is a real risk of undermining this country’s reputation for stable and predictable regulation. Given the importance of financial services to the economy as a whole, the wider national economic interest is clearly at play.
The culture also goes wrong when we look at the way in which the FCA runs itself. I have had the benefit of a briefing from Unite the Union, and will turn later to some questions it poses through me. Independently of that, I have spoken privately to a handful of people who work for the FCA. I am not going to tell the House what they told me, because even though what they told me was in general terms—just for my own background and understanding—they were concerned that if something I said allowed them to be identified within the organisation, it would be to their professional detriment. Just hold that thought for a second: they are so concerned, and the culture in the FCA is so poor, that they are not prepared, even anonymously, to speak to Members of Parliament. If anybody doubts that there is a cultural problem within the FCA, that should surely remove those doubts.
The morale among staff is pretty poor. I have to say, though, that the staff I met genuinely understand the importance of the work they do in the public interest; they value the role they play, but clearly feel undervalued by the senior executives and the people at the top—and, actually, they are undervalued. Sixty staff working at the FCA earn salaries of less than £29,500, which is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum salary recommendation that is required for an acceptable living standard. In fact, that amount would not even allow someone to bring a spouse into the UK under immigration regulations these days.
Unite the Union has surveyed staff extensively and speaks about the toxic environment within the FCA for staff reps, who are given little assistance or support and minimal information. The FCA carries out a quite remarkable performance assessment framework, which is not a million miles removed from the one that I knew when I first became a civil servant at the start of my legal career 30 years ago. I thought we would have moved well away from that, because it was hopelessly inadequate—but no; it seems as if it is almost designed to encourage mediocrity. It is the sort of system that was used by a number of public sector and City companies for a long time, but I do not know of many companies that have used that sort of framework for the last 10 years. It has destroyed the collaborative working environment within the FCA, and 81% of respondents to the Unite survey identified it as being unfair to them.
Unite has posed some questions to me that I will read into the record. I do not expect the Minister to answer them all, but perhaps he could follow up in correspondence. Why does a public sector organisation that pays its chief executive over £450,000 a year find it acceptable to pay a large number of staff below the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum income standard? Why has the FCA not made any cost of living adjustments for its staff in the 2024 pay round, following a punishing cost of living crisis? Why has the FCA not delivered the resource and priority it has promised staff representation in the wake of recent failures? If the FCA is committed to “best in class” staff representation, as the FCA chair Ashley Alder told the Treasury Committee last year, why will it not recognise a trade union?
What are the Government doing to hold the FCA leadership to account for the problematic culture of fear and burnout, the high staff turnover and the sinking morale that Unite the Union has consistently reported over the years? Why has the FCA persisted with a severely outdated model of staff performance grading, long abandoned by the industry it regulates? Surely the FCA should be leading the sector as a role model, should it not? Finally, why has the FCA made no headway in its large disability pay gap? Unite the Union reports that staff with disabilities, neurodivergence or complex personal circumstances are simply getting poorer performance and pay outcomes than their peers.
The FCA as an organisation does massively important work in the public interest but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), it is surely clear that it is working for nobody. It is not working for members of the public who rely on the protection it might give them, as evidenced by my constituents and the impact they felt from the Midas Financial Solutions Ponzi scheme’s fraud. It is not working for the benefit of the sector that it regulates, as evidenced by its proposed changes to the enforcement code. It is not working for our communities, as evidenced by the work on access to cash referenced by my hon. Friend, and it is most certainly not working for the benefit of the people it employs.
It is apparent to me that the poor culture in the FCA is driven from the top and then bleeds into every aspect of its work. As an organisation, it has lost direction and lacks leadership from the top. However, we all remember why we have it and why it was set up. For the national economic interest of us all, it is too important to fail, but surely it is apparent that it is failing, and somebody needs to take control and change that.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
It is a pleasure to be here. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising this extremely important issue for debate. Neither he nor the House will be surprised to hear that the Government agree—and I very strongly agree—that accountability for the financial services regulators is of the utmost importance. Before I was in my current post, I set up, chaired and ran the Regulatory Reform Group, which brought together over a dozen Members of this House to think about how we reform the regulatory and accountability structures in this country. I have thought and been concerned about that issue for many years.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other Members will be aware that the FCA is operationally independent and must act to advance the objectives that Parliament has set for it. Independence of the regulators, however, must be balanced with clear accountability; appropriate democratic input, for which this debate is one forum; and transparent oversight. That is why the FCA is fully accountable to Parliament and the Treasury for how it discharges its functions.
To ensure that the regulators consider the financial services sector’s critical role in supporting the British economy, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, last summer we gave the regulators new secondary objectives to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth for the medium to long term. By putting growth and competitiveness at the heart of our regulatory system, while retaining the primacy of protecting the safety and soundness for financial services firms and the wider system, we will ensure that the sector remains at the forefront of the global economy. It is vital that we hold the FCA to account for delivering on those objectives; I take that responsibility very seriously.
I will come on to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, in no particular order. What comes to my mind first is that he mentioned the FCA’s so-called naming and shaming proposals, which have been covered in the media and elsewhere. The Chancellor has been publicly clear that he thinks the FCA should rethink that approach, and I share his view completely. I am particularly interested in, and strongly support, the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman that it is most often the small players that see the sharp end of that approach. What that does to innovation, competition and actual money for individuals invested in those small players, be they customers or shareholders, is very significant. The right hon. Gentleman explained eloquently that the impact of being named and shamed very early could be significant. I want to put on record, following up on what the Chancellor has said publicly, that I believe the FCA should rethink that and rethink it quickly.
Wendy Chamberlain
That is my concern, given what I have heard today in relation to access to cash. One real concern of communities is that banks rush to leave town and leave one bank standing. When we think about banking hubs and communities, we are thinking about ensuring that the most vulnerable have access, so it is really important those bigger players are held to account. Does the Minister agree?
Bim Afolami
The hon. Lady makes an important and fair point. I agree with her that access to cash—which, as she knows, this Government legislated for—needs primacy in the way she has described. Banking hubs are a replacement when several banks have shut in a town or large village, and I believe that the assessment criteria relating to where they come in and the speed of the roll-out should be looked at again. To be fair, that is not down to the FCA. The expected timeframe for it to finish its consultation on access to cash is the third quarter of this year, and although the FCA is part of that process, it is worth saying that it is not the primary driver; the primary driver is the industry.
Let me come to a case that I know is close to heart of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: the failure of Midas Financial Solutions. Mr Alistair Greig perpetrated a large-scale fraud over a period of several years, lying to those who trusted him with their pensions and life savings. Those were people who had done the right thing in their lives—they had done everything right—and because of the fraud of that individual and his company, they lost out. The FCA intervened in 2014, following the receipt of intelligence related to the Midas scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme was subsequently able to compensate eligible customers for a significant portion of what was lost, and Mr Greig was charged, found guilty of fraud and imprisoned.
It is imperative that the FCA continues to robustly enforce its rules and standards, not just against firms that are carrying out blatantly fraudulent activity as in the case of Midas, but to ensure that all the firms it supervises meet high standards and deliver high-quality outcomes. The FCA operates a risk-based approach, not a zero-failure regime. It is important Ministers say this: we are not in a world—nor should we aim to be in one—where it is impossible for anything to go wrong ever. What we have to do is say to the FCA, “Your job is to maintain a high standard and high quality in the market for all the firms you supervise.”
Mr Carmichael
I have absolutely no argument with the Minister on that point—it is absolutely sensible—but the fact of the matter is that the regulator was told not once, not twice, but three times, and each time it failed to take the appropriate action. It was sometimes just as basic as putting people through to the wrong extension when they phoned. The truth of the matter is that if my constituent and the 94 others who took legal action had not stuck with it, nobody would have got any compensation from the FCA. That is why there is surely a basic point of fairness and justice here: having been the ones who got the money for everyone, the money that they spent getting that compensation should be recognised.
Bim Afolami
I thank the right hon. Member for that point, which I will consider carefully while I discuss the accountability of the FCA to Parliament and the Treasury. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 establishes multiple ways for the Government, Parliament and the public to scrutinise the FCA—through, for example, its annual reports, which must set out how it has advanced its objectives. This year, down to the proposals of this Government and this Treasury, the FCA will for the first time report on how it has embedded its new growth and competitiveness objective. The Treasury can direct the FCA to include extra things in its reports. The FCA also regularly publishes a large amount of data on its performance—for example, on the time taken to respond to applications for authorisation—which demonstrates to the public whether it is meeting its targets. Indeed, the Treasury can shape the focus of the FCA by writing to it to set out which aspects of Government economic policy it should have regard to when advancing its objectives and carrying out its functions.
The right hon. Member mentioned concerns that had been shared with him about the internal culture, and pay decisions by the FCA. It is not appropriate for a Minister to pronounce on those things, beyond saying that I will be with him in scrutinising the annual report when it comes out to see in which areas those things are addressed. I am happy to discuss that with him, as well as the methods for accountability in that regard. It is also important that we set out through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 that the regulators are now required to respond annually to the recommendation letters. This provides greater transparency about how the regulators respond to Government recommendations.
The Treasury also has a range of powers to direct the FCA in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, it can require the FCA to conduct an investigation of relevant events where it is in the public interest. That happened once in relation to the FCA; in 2019, the Treasury directed the FCA to review the events relating to the failure of London Capital & Finance. After that report was done, the FCA subsequently accepted and implemented all recommendations, which included a significant overhaul of its operations through its transformation programme.
In addition to the Government and the Treasury, Parliament also has a vital role in scrutinising the actions and performance of the FCA. We have the Treasury Committee, and there is a new House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, which regularly examines the work of the FCA. I would add that it is important that we think more about how we scrutinise in the most effective way. I fear that sometimes when it comes to the FCA, there are so many methods of accountability that it almost appears that there are none. They are so disparate, bitty and numerous that it is time consuming and expensive for the FCA, and often difficult to follow for Members of Parliament.
There is more work that we can do to streamline the process of accountability to ensure that it is rock solid and firm, and focused on not just consumer outcomes but ensuring the market works—and to do so in a way that makes sense for both Houses of Parliament. For example, between December 2019 and March this year, the FCA provided oral evidence to Select Committees on 36 occasions. That is a lot. In addition, there is constant discussion between Members of this House and the FCA. I think there is accountability, but we need to find ways to ensure that it is streamlined and more focused.
I hope I have reassured the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that the Government take holding the FCA to account very seriously—I know that I do in particular. The legislative framework is designed to strike the right balance between the independence of the regulators and ensuring that they are held properly accountable. The Government have built on that accountability through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. This House, and Parliament as a whole, will be able to judge the FCA’s progress through things such as the upcoming report on how it has advanced its new secondary growth and competitiveness objective since it came into effect last year, and whether it takes account of the view of this House and the Chancellor on its naming and shaming proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Youth Homelessness
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered youth homelessness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I should declare that my husband is chair of YMCA Together, in Liverpool—it is an unpaid role—and that I am a national patron for YMCA. I pay tribute to the colleagues and friends from various organisations in the homelessness sector who are here today. We have representatives from New Horizon Youth Centre, Centrepoint and Depaul. Thank you for the work that you do and for being here today.
Those colleagues who know me well know that I have a very keen interest in all matters relating to homelessness —hopefully, some would say a serious interest. I am also very proud to be a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. I use my role to regularly raise awareness, where and when I can. I am more than happy to be considered a broken record on homelessness. Given that I care deeply about being a voice for those who may feel they have none, I will accept such a charge. I know that if I am a nuisance to the Minister—I have a lot of time for her, as she well knows—and my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I will be playing my small part in moving the needle towards progress and change.
Homelessness is multifaceted. Different forms exist. They range from sofa surfing and rough sleeping, to being stuck in temporary accommodation, and so much more besides. Yesterday we saw the latest statistics released by the Department and they once again reveal the scale of the problem—more than 112,000 households and 145,000 children in temporary accommodation.
Of course, homelessness is caused by different factors: poverty, trauma, leaving care, being a victim of domestic abuse—the list goes on and on, and different demographics of people are affected in a multitude of ways. They include women, young people, those who define as LGBTQ+, our veterans, prison leavers and many more. The solution to the homelessness emergency therefore must be multifaceted. Yes, we desperately need to build more homes for truly affordable and social rent, but so too must we properly fund our local authorities and reform the welfare system—although not in the way that we have seen announced this week—and essentially we must tackle the underlying trauma that the vast majority of people who find themselves homeless have experienced in one form or another. All of this will require all of Government—not just one part—to put it front and centre. Anything less is simply not good enough.
Amid such an emergency, young people are often overlooked by the system. There is growing concern that ever greater revenue constraints being placed on local government lead to young people and young adults getting a raw deal from a system already at breaking point. Young people who experience homelessness are overlooked, in my opinion, by Government, by the Department and, yes, by Members from across this place. Although I know that there are local elections tomorrow, I am saddened that we are not seeing more Members here today for this incredibly important debate.
I am reliably informed that this is the first time in nearly 40 years that such time has been dedicated to the specific issue of youth homelessness. The previous time, in 1985, was largely because the late Alfred Morris, the former Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe and latterly Lord Morris, took it upon himself to raise the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I was reading through the Hansard entry and I despaired at the fact that that contribution, the words that Alfred Morris spoke in 1985, could be said here today, in 2024. The former Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe said there was
“no information available on the numbers of homeless adolescents and young people in London and the other major conurbations.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1303.]
He went on to talk about the lack of cross-departmental working to tackle the problem, saying,
“the present piecemeal approach to the problem of homelessness among young people is hampering other valuable work in this sector”,
and,
“The DHSS, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and local authorities are all involved in different, but not very clearly differentiated, aspects of the problem.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1304.]
It is staggering to think 40 years later how little overall progress has been made. Even where it has been—for example, under the last Labour Government—surely it has since been eroded. We still do not truly know how many young adults find themselves homeless. The data collected by the Department could be so much better and so much more far-reaching. Given that we are almost certain to have a general election at some point in 2024, I truly hope that my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues will consider the demands that I will put to the Government today. Collecting better data on young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 will not alarm any fiscal hawk at the Treasury. It is good policy, and can be achieved very simply: by making amendments to the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
As it is, we rely on the likes of Centrepoint, the national youth homelessness charity, which through its databank work has estimated that nearly 136,000 young people approached their local council as homeless in 2022-23. Many of them were not even close to getting formally assessed. Despite Centrepoint’s numbers being much larger than those of the Department, it should be noted that those are a small c conservative estimate that do not include the thousands of young people classified as the hidden homeless—for instance, those young people sofa surfing and those who have not approached their local council in any way.
To obtain such information for England, Centrepoint had to make freedom of information requests for every local authority in the country. That is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. How can the Government properly begin to solve the problem if they do not truly understand the scale of it? That is why charities like Centrepoint—teaming up with the likes of the Albert Kennedy Trust, the YMCA and the fantastic New Horizon Youth Centre, which does so much to help young people in London, and 100 youth organisations—are calling for a national youth homelessness strategy: a plan for the 136,000.
Back in March, campaigners calling for a plan for the 136,000 homeless young people garnered more than 15,000 signatures on a UK Government petition. As they rightly said in their petition,
“no one is talking about this”
and there is no specific national plan to tackle youth homelessness. I ask the Minister to please refrain from trotting out the usual spiel about how much money the Department is throwing at homelessness—with little success, may I add?—and to instead commit today to start putting together a far-reaching and ambitious national youth homelessness strategy this side of the election: a plan for the 136,000.
As Alfred Morris highlighted in 1985, Departments did not work with each other then, and they still do not today. Those experiencing homelessness, not least our young people, are always the ones who bear the brunt of Whitehall working in its traditional silos. Despite a valiant effort by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) when he was a Minister to at least secure some cross-departmental buy-in for the rough sleeping strategy, this Government have shown no real vision in operating the cross-departmental working that a national youth homelessness strategy would rely on.
Young people can experience homelessness for a plethora of reasons. Their experience if they do can be nothing short of desperate, and they are routinely institutionally failed by the state. Many are not supported to transition into adulthood and, as such, they face unique barriers that can push them into homelessness. They may lack the documents to evidence their homelessness—for example, written confirmation from their caregiver that they are no longer welcome in the home. I have had the privilege of meeting many young people at New Horizon in London. They told me that they were not taken seriously or believed when they were presented at a council, and many local authorities fail to provide a proper homelessness assessment. Some young people are asked to return home when that may not be safe. Furthermore, they may not know what support is available beyond the family home that they need to leave. So we need wholesale change. Young people deserve better. Our care leavers deserve better.
The cost of youth homelessness to the Treasury is estimated to be £8.5 billion a year, or an average of £27,347 for each young homeless person. Young people are vulnerable to homelessness due to unique barriers, including a lack of visibility, reduced benefits and a shortage of affordable youth-specific housing. I just mentioned the poor outcomes for young people who approach their local council for support. In my city of Liverpool, 1,849 young people approached the council as homeless, but only 332 were assessed by the local authority. A total of 1,743 people were not supported into housing after approaching Liverpool City Council. I do not blame my council; I blame this Government. Resources are scarce and the council is stretched to absolute breaking point. Young people often bear the brunt of local government austerity more than most. Liverpool City Council is projected to see temporary accommodation costs rise from £250,000 in 2019 to £25 million by the end of this financial year, which is a rise of 10,000%.
What could a national strategy achieve? A national cross-departmental youth homelessness strategy could look at extending priority need to all care leavers up to age 25, as well as exempting them from council tax payments. A national strategy could work with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to look at taper rates for those young people in supported housing who are disincentivised from taking on extra hours at work, and as a result cannot move on to independent living. In hotspot areas, a national strategy could see councils adopting localised youth homelessness strategies, with dedicated youth homelessness teams. It could also look at repurposing a small part of the single homelessness accommodation programme to include youth-specific provision. We need a plan for the 136,000. A national strategy could do that and so much more much besides.
Behind the headline figures and the policies are human stories of desperation and frustration—stories of untapped potential and young people not being able to fulfil their hopes, dreams and aspirations. I have witnessed first-hand the fantastic work of local charities such as the Whitechapel Centre in Liverpool, the Mustard Tree in Manchester and the New Horizon Youth Centre in north London.
New Horizon’s chief executive, Phil Kerry, head of policy, Polly, and their whole team told me the story of Zephyr. At 20 years old, university student Zephyr suddenly had to leave his family home in east London after a family breakdown last summer. He had nowhere else to go, so he spent over a week on the streets of London, which he says was awful. He struggled to find food, so spent much of the week starving. During that time, Zephyr came across New Horizon Youth Centre outreach workers, who invited him into the day centre where he received food and was able to shower. He was given emergency accommodation for a week. After at least three weeks of waiting, he was accepted into a medium-stay hostel where he was able to volunteer.
Being off the streets and in stable accommodation allowed Zephyr to focus on his future. However, he was developing severe issues with his mental health as a result of being homeless and of his financial situation, so he had to drop out of university. Through mental health support, jobs education and training support from New Horizon, he is now in full-time employment as a support assistant for a housing association in London. He is still staying in hostel accommodation and is waiting until he can afford a room of his own in the private rented sector. Zephyr’s dream is to become a youth worker to help other young people in situations like his own.
There are at least 136,000 more stories like Zephyr’s, and for every Zephyr there is someone like him who may not have a New Horizon Youth Centre to support them. Never mind the economic cost: if a person fails to get angry when contemplating the possible waste of human potential through youth homelessness, I would argue that they are simply not human. Zephyr needs hope, but more importantly he deserves a future. Surely that is why we all entered politics. Austerity economics, the cost of living crisis, low wages and a housing crisis that is out of control have led us to this place.
All our young people are struggling, across the board, but care leavers, those who cannot access mental health support and those who have suffered family breakdown, have untold trauma and then fall on the wrong side of a homeless emergency—who will speak up for them? The third sector does an absolutely amazing job, but we cannot absolve ourselves of our responsibilities in this place and across Whitehall. This has been going on for far too long. The state has a much more active role to play.
It falls to all of us in this place to speak up for our young people who experience homelessness and, crucially, to make change happen. I hope that the Minister can agree today to changing how data is collected and commit to implementing a youth homelessness strategy. I would also very much welcome a commitment to looking at removing the elements relating to homelessness from the Criminal Justice Bill, which is an issue that I have consistently raised in this place.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I was going to make a proper speech, but as hon. Members may have noticed, I have a small problem with my voice today. I shall be very brief and make just two observations.
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate. My first observation, when the hon. Lady talked about building more homes, was that we need to start being honest. One of the significant reasons for our housing shortage in this country is net immigration. Last year, we took just under 700,000 new people and built just under 150,000 new homes. We do not have to be rocket scientists to realise that that is absolutely going to drive things in the wrong direction for the sort of people the hon. Lady was talking about.
Secondly, I believe I am the only person in Parliament who has spent a significant time living homeless on the streets of various cities in this country and overseas. In total, I think I have spent about five months homeless, including about four months on the streets of London, for television documentaries where I played the part without cheating. A big observation from that time is that the overwhelming majority of young people who are on the streets of Britain’s cities, and indeed those of the United States and so many other places in Europe, are there because of drug addiction. Until we start to treat drug addicts primarily as people who are unwell, and only secondly as committing criminal acts, we will get nowhere with this problem. Particularly for young people, but also across the board, the money, effort and rhetoric that we put into the criminal justice system to deal with drug addicts, who are sick people, needs to be diverted into the health system. Until that happens, we will continue to have relatively large numbers of sick young people living rough on the streets of our cities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading the debate and for illustrating the issue so well with the story of Zephyr. Nothing tells a story better than an example like that. It is also an example of what can be done to help that person: he has accommodation and a job to go to, and he wishes to be a councillor and help others. That tells me that if the effort is made, a change can be made. The hon. Lady deserves to be congratulated, as do all the groups and charities that work to ensure that Zephyr and others can have a better life.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I thank him for his interest, his observations, his focus and his two suggestions, which the Government should be encouraged to support.
I will give a Northern Ireland example, as I always do, because it is important that we have a perspective from across the United Kingdom: it adds to the debate and shows that what happens here is also an issue elsewhere. Homelessness has become a major issue across the UK, especially among our young people. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to early intervention; I believe that there is a real opportunity for early intervention and to ensure that our young people, who are our future, have the means to get the best possible start in life. It is great to be here to talk about the issue and hear about experiences in other constituencies.
“A Place to Call Home”, a report produced by Queen’s University on behalf of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, included interviews with some 32 participants across three main strands. It showed that the basic minimum to support children and young people in Northern Ireland is not being met. I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to give a flavour of where we are. Now that the Assembly is up and working again, the responsibility for an action plan to address the issue will fall on the shoulders of the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The issue of young people and families in temporary accommodation within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has become a prevalent one back home, as they simply have nowhere to go. That is, without doubt, a form of homelessness. The figures speak for themselves and cannot be ignored. In the period from January to June 2022, households and families accepted as homeless in Northern Ireland included 3,495 children. Furthermore, in July 2022, 3,913 children aged under 18 were living in temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland, an increase from 2,433 in January 2019. That includes children living with their families and young people aged 16 to 17 living independently. That massive increase shows the size of the problem and illustrates that this is an issue not just here, but across the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Young people not having a decent place to live has a direct impact on other aspects of their life, such as poor health and wellbeing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree talked about how Zephyr’s anxiety issues rose as a result of what happened, and depression and mental health had knock-on effects as well. We also have to be aware of wellbeing outcomes and the inability of children to learn at school and beyond. If someone is focusing on their health issues and how they feel mentally and physically, it is quite difficult to have a positive focus for the future.
It is worth noting that Northern Ireland has a major problem with hidden homelessness among our youth, who sleep rough or sofa-surf with friends or family. I probably encounter that every week in my office myself or through my staff: people depending on the good will of family members, or more often friends, living in their cars, sleeping on benches or sofa-surfing.
The Simon Community in Northern Ireland is instrumental in supporting young people with accommodation. It has youth accommodation projects designed to assist young people aged 16 to 25 in their transition towards independent adulthood. We must recognise just how difficult that is. Those projects provide a nurturing environment where young people can flourish. I give credit to the Simon Community for what it does and for how it tries to address these issues.
The hon. Lady’s introduction emphasised to me and everyone here how sympathetic she is to this cause. She has done some fantastic work on it through her role as shadow Minister for Housing. Data from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities shows that 54% of homeless people report experiencing homelessness for the first time when under the age of 25.
This debate is so important, because it focuses on a group of young people who we hope will have opportunities for the future, as well as a job, accommodation and relationships that can help them to build the society we live in. Some 48% of those people experience rough sleeping for the first time before the age of 25. The impact of the youth homelessness crisis can be seen all across society. Until the root causes of youth homelessness are addressed, this crisis will continue to escalate.
I am ever mindful of the importance of this debate, and I want to suggest two suggestions that I think will be helpful. We are here not just to raise awareness of this matter, but to give suggestions, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has done. We will hear more from others in this debate, and we look to our Minister to ensure that we can get positive responses.
What can we do? First, we need an early identification programme to ensure that children at school—as early as that—who are at risk are identified and supported. I suggest respectfully that the Minister should co-ordinate our campaign with the Department for Education to ensure that those who are showing signs of having problems at home and who may end up homeless or on the street are identified and supported.
Secondly, we need to have more affordable youth-friendly accommodation, like the accommodation the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to, which saved young Zephyr and many others. Such accommodation will probably save many more lives in the future, but it needs help to make that happen. We need to have a focus on more affordable youth-friendly accommodation that young people can be expected to afford to live in. The hon. Lady outlined the issues: these young people are trying to study for their exams, their money issues are piling up around them, and they are wondering, “Where am I going to go next?”. These issues compound each other. We have all seen the extortionate prices people are paying for rent—it is completely unrealistic to expect a young person to be able to pay that, especially looking at the figures in London.
I look respectfully and honestly to the Minister for solutions. While there is an understanding of this situation, I believe it is so important that we take the appropriate steps to support our young people and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree says, address the issue of youth homelessness. It is a blight on society and it needs to be addressed. I look to the Minister to give us those solutions.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dame Siobhain. I speak not only as the shadow Minister responding to this debate on youth homelessness, but as a former Connexions manager. It was my job, with my team, to get people into education, training, work and housing.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. As a former shadow Minister and the joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, she has a genuine passion for this subject, as she showed eloquently in her powerful speech. Like myself and many others, she is determined to provide the homes, support and housing that young people need.
Yesterday, as my hon. Friend said, this Government broke even more records on homelessness. Despite bold promises to end the most visible form of homelessness—rough sleeping—by the end of this year, in reality, rough sleeping, which affects many young people up and down the country, rose by 27% last year. That is more than double the number of people recorded as rough sleeping in 2010, when records began.
Despite spending a considerable amount of money—I imagine the Minister will reference a figure around £2.3 billion—the current approach is simply not working. It is broken. It is there for all to see, whether it be a visible form of homelessness on the streets of London, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham and so forth, or the people many of us know who come to our surgeries and who are sofa surfing or living in temporary accommodation. Is the Minister confident that the Government will deliver on the target of ending rough sleeping by the end of 2024? What is not working? It would be useful to have a response in the not-too-distant future.
Adam Holloway
For street homeless people who are drug-addicted, part of the problem is that if someone needs to beg for a couple of hundred pounds a day to feed their addiction, the answer is not for them to be accommodated somewhere in south London. They need to be at a main station or in a capital city to get the money to pay for the drugs. I think the hon. Member will agree that that is a real conundrum.
Mike Amesbury
I do not disagree with the hon. Member. In fact, I recently met Baroness Casey, who has worked across Governments of all political colours, and she repeated that exact argument. I agree 100%.
Again, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, another record was broken yesterday: 112,660 families now live in costly temporary accommodation, costing around £1.8 billion a year—a 12.1% increase since last year. Shamefully, we now have 145,800 children living in temporary accommodation, and in that regard I pay tribute to you, Dame Siobhain, for all the work you have consistently done and will continue to do in championing their cause.
Youth homelessness is also up, with 136,000 young people presenting as homeless to local councils—a 5% rise on the previous figure of 129,000—and that is just the tip of the iceberg, if we take account of those who are sofa surfing, in temporary accommodation or bed and breakfasts, or sleeping in friends’ houses on a temporary basis and so on. As my hon. Friend said, young people are often overlooked in the homelessness emergency and get a raw deal from a system that is often overstretched and uninformed. A point echoed by hon. Members across the Chamber today is that training is required to remedy that.
Research by Centrepoint suggests that 67% of young people were not prevented from becoming homeless by local councils last year. I am keen to hear the Minister explain how she will ensure that local authorities, including councils, up and down the country respond to their obligations laid out in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
As a Wythenshawe lad, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to Lord Morris of Manchester, a previous MP for Manchester, Wythenshawe. She is right; almost 40 years on from his speech on youth homelessness in 1985—the year I left school—and despite innovations by the last Labour Government, which left office some 14 years ago, very little has changed. We still have a Government who lack political leadership, operate in silence, provide insufficient support and are certainly not building the genuinely affordable homes that people need. I came into politics because I genuinely want a socially just society. Ending all forms of homelessness must be a driving goal of any future Labour Minister or Labour Government. I commend the great work of all the charities here today—Centrepoint, New Horizon Youth Centre and Depaul UK—and the hundred youth organisations that came together and called for a national youth homelessness plan for the 136,000.
Let me outline what Labour’s approach would be. The four pillars would be, first, upstream and informed; secondly, cross-departmental political leadership; thirdly, the supply of genuinely affordable housing and supported housing for young people; and fourthly, providing a helping hand. Before that, however, an immediate intervention is required on section 21 no-fault evictions. Sadly, since 2019 nearly 80,000 households, far too many of them young people, have been put at risk of homelessness. We must have no more kicking the can down the road with the narrative of court reform. A Labour Administration will end no-fault evictions for good. They will be abolished.
Let me outline the pillars in turn. The first is upstream and informed. On youth homelessness, we need to get upstream of all the problems. All too often, young people become homeless when they are passed between institutions and fall through the many glaring cracks in the system. Early intervention and identification in schools and colleges will be required, with better support for children, parents and carers. I find this quite irritating, because I was previously a Connexions manager and had staff who did exactly that until the coalition Government abolished Connexions. We can learn from some of the good things of the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree mentioned data collection, which is a clarion call for the 100 or so organisations working in this area. It should be strengthened and not reliant on freedom of information requests. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that could be achieved by a simple change to the Homelessness Reduction Act.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, for individuals at the heart of the homelessness emergency, trauma and mental health issues are often at the core of their story. Homelessness could be prevented and ended for good if we had person-centred psychological support. I know that Centrepoint and other charities provide such support, but we need to hardwire it into the system. Trauma-informed care must be part of a successful strategy. That would please my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
The second pillar is political leadership on ending the silos. We have to stop Government Departments operating in silos. It was mentioned that a previous Minister attempted to do that, but let us look at when we have had some success. I mentioned Dame Louise Casey, whom I met again recently. We created a cross-departmental rough sleepers unit that sat in the Cabinet Office and drove that programme forward, and we saw a real reduction in rough sleeping and the use of temporary housing. That was 14 years ago under the Labour Government, and we can certainly learn from that as we work in the context of a new landscape, with metro Mayors and devolved Administrations across the UK.
Pillar three will be building more genuinely affordable homes—social homes, council homes and housing that is youth specific, with the appropriate stock. Supply is key. We have stated that a future Labour Administration will build 1.5 million homes over five years, and genuinely affordable homes—homes for social rent—have to be a fundamental part of the mix. We will build homes on a scale that people in this country have not seen in generations. Last year, the Government created 9,500 homes for social rent. There are 1.3 million people on the housing need register. If we take into account homes that were bought through right to buy and demolitions, the figure is minus 14,000 every year since 2010. The system is broken. We have to build the houses. Labour has to get Britain building again for all our people, but particularly young people.
Finally, the fourth pillar is about providing a helping hand. The Labour party is the party of work—that is what “labour” means. We were set up by the trade unions and the labour movement to provide good, secure work. The current social security system penalises people, particularly young people living independently and trying to get on with a job, education and training. That has to change. My colleagues in the shadow DWP team are determined to ensure that they have good, secure work. We will deal with the systemic issues. There was a reference to care leavers and council tax and so forth. We will provide a hand up to ensure that people can stay in their homes or move to other homes.
Ending youth homelessness is not just a moral imperative, as stated by my good colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. It costs over £27,000 per individual—£8.5 billion—but the issue is more important than that. It is about young people’s hopes, dreams and futures. I hope that in future as a Minister I can do my bit to provide hope, houses and opportunities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the House for assembling here to debate the very important topic of youth homelessness, and those in the Public Gallery who have come into Parliament today. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I know well as my shadow Minister, for her thoughtful contribution. I will address her big picture points on data and the youth homelessness strategy, but first I will address a few of the specific questions that I have been asked.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his powerful and brief contribution. It is good that he was able to do so with a struggling voice. I agree with him that alcohol and drug addiction are significant drivers of homelessness. That is why the Government are investing £186.5 million over the three-year spending review period, and we allocated £15 million as part of the cross-Government drug strategy. I agree that homelessness is a complex problem, but addiction clearly is part of it. I reassure my hon. Friend that I work incredibly closely with colleagues in the Department of Health.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. I particularly thank him for participating since housing is devolved in Northern Ireland. He raised powerful points.
The suggestion that the Government are not working in a cross-Government way and are siloed is slightly ironic, because this morning I chaired the cross-Government rough sleeping board, part of which consists of the senior officials in every relevant Department. I assure the House that there is a lot of cross-Government working happening, which is critical.
Paula Barker
It is wonderful to hear the Minister speak about chairing the cross-Government rough sleeping board, but has she asked why it is failing and why the numbers are consistently going up?
Felicity Buchan
Rough sleeping has ticked up over the past year, but it is still down from the pre-pandemic numbers and the peaks in 2017. Clearly, every single person rough sleeping is one too many. We have particular issues in London with rough sleepers who have no recourse to public funds, and we encourage support for them, but that is an entrenched issue. The Government are working to address any new flow of rough sleepers; I want to give the House a few examples of that.
We have been working incredibly closely with the Ministry of Justice to address those leaving prison. There are sometimes relatively simple solutions, such as not releasing someone from prison on a Friday, given that there is no local authority support over the weekend. I was very happy to hear that the number of prison leavers who are rough sleeping has gone down by one third, but there is clearly still work to be done.
I have also worked incredibly closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are not released from hospital on to the streets. In the winter, we formulated new guidance on that for all hospitals, and we made exceptional money available and suggested that it could be used on hospital discharge.
I work incredibly closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education. The hon. Lady rightly referred to care leavers who are rough sleeping, and I will talk about them in more depth.
We also work very closely with the Home Office. An issue that has come up in the Chamber in the past is that there are a lot of people who have successful asylum claims, and in some instances when they leave Home Office accommodation they go to their local authority for support. We have clearly seen an uptick in successful asylum seekers.
I could not agree more that we need to build more homes, and this Government are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment of 1 million homes during the life of this Parliament; we have a target of 300,000 homes per year. I thought it was a bit rich when the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said the Labour party would be better at delivering more homes, given that London under the Labour Mayor is the worst-performing region for housing delivery and has required intervention from the Secretary of State.
Mike Amesbury
In the last year of the Labour Government, we built 30,000 homes for social rent. The Minister mentioned 1 million homes, but we are not talking about four and five-bedroom homes built by Redrow, Morris Homes and so forth—nice companies though they are—which are beyond the reach of young people; we are talking about homes for social rent. Sadiq Khan has very ambitious plans to build 40,000 council homes, and I am confident that people will give him a strong mandate tomorrow.
Felicity Buchan
Well, we will see what the electorate decide tomorrow. One thing that is very clear is that in 2022, London was the worst-performing region for housing delivery and the west midlands was No. 1.
Let me get to the substance of my speech. We can all agree that every young person, no matter where in the country they live, no matter what their personal circumstances may be, deserves a roof over their head and a safe place to call home.
Young people are the future of this country; they will help shape the Britain of tomorrow. That is why this Government are committed to delivering the safe, warm, decent and affordable housing that every young person needs, providing the solid, stable foundation to get on in life and achieve their potential. We are committed to tackling all forms of homelessness and are investing £2.4 billion over three years to help achieve that. Importantly, of that £2.4 billion, £1.2 billion is for the homelessness prevention grant. That is critical; we need to prevent homelessness before it occurs in the first instance.
That money—the £1.2 billion—can be used flexibly by local authorities, to offer financial support for people to find a new home, to work with landlords to prevent evictions, or to provide temporary accommodation. I want to say one thing on temporary accommodation. Clearly, we all want people to be in settled accommodation, but temporary accommodation is an important step to get a roof over people’s heads, ensuring that young people are given the support that they need to prevent or relieve their homelessness.
Someone posed the rhetorical question: what has this Government done to help young people and their homelessness? I would say it is meaningful that we passed the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was a private Member’s Bill that Government supported and came into force in 2018. That Act has been revolutionary in its effect on our approach to youth homelessness. The Act means that local authorities have a duty to assess, prevent and relieve homelessness across the board, not only for those who are vulnerable. We have helped more than 740,000 households avoid homelessness, courtesy of the Act, and it has been revolutionary.
We have come a long way with that Act, but we are not blind to the challenges that we continue to face. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked me about cross-Department strategy to end youth homelessness. We recognise that young people experiencing homelessness are confronted by particular challenges in accessing and maintaining accommodation, but a strategy is very important. That is why this Government published the landmark strategy in 2022 called, “Ending rough sleeping for good”, which prioritises prevention.
I am often asked, “Can you ever end rough sleeping for good?” We defined ending rough sleeping as that it should be prevented whenever possible, but if it cannot be prevented it should be rare, brief and non-recurrent. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree that data is incredibly important. That is why we are working with the Centre for Homelessness Impact, which has a huge data project in which it is monitoring us and local authorities against these targets: have we got rough sleeping rare, brief and non-recurrent? I have also sat down with the chief statistician and talked to him about the importance of data in homelessness, because it is only when we know what and where the problem is that we can address it.
A key part of our “Ending rough sleeping for good” strategy was the single homelessness accommodation programme, which is worth £200 million in this spending review. We have committed to more in the next spending review. That programme is providing up to 2,000 homes for people sleeping rough or at risk of sleeping rough. It is targeted at young people and at those with complex needs. At least 650 of those homes are reserved specifically for young people. I am delighted to say that Liverpool will receive over £2 million of that funding, delivering 20 homes for single homeless young people to help them live independently. Our rough sleeping initiative in 2024 targets £2.5 million of funding at youth-specific services in eight local authorities across England. That funding provides specialist support for young people, such as outreach workers and prevention officers, and specialist housing for those under 25.
We talked about councils being required to carry out their statutory duties, and I want to make it very clear that councils are required to implement the Homelessness Reduction Act, which puts prevention at the heart of local authorities’ response to homelessness. If there is reason to believe that an individual or household may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine whether that is the case. Of all households assessed for homelessness, 89% were owed a prevention or relief duty.
We have talked about the hidden homeless. That is very important and I would encourage anyone who is hidden homeless to contact their local authority. Our specialist youth homelessness advisers work closely with housing and children’s services across the country, providing advice, support and challenge to local authorities to help improve the delivery of homelessness services and to support compliance with the statutory duties.
We have also discussed the difference between Government data and that presented by Centre Point’s databank research. I am tremendously grateful for all the work that the voluntary and charitable sector does in this space. I have had the privilege of doing many Government visits to charities. I went to visit Centre Point in Wandsworth about a year ago, and I have always been impressed by everything that is done by the voluntary sector. They are an integral part of supporting our homelessness efforts.
Just last week, I visited a youth homelessness house in my constituency, Dashwood House, which was run by the Salvation Army Housing Association. That house was for 18 to 25-year-old women. I was incredibly impressed with the service that they were providing and the move-on support they offered. It was wonderful that a lot of people who had lived in Dashwood House, but who had now moved on to their own settled accommodation, came back to visit that day. I am very grateful to organisations for all their research and work to support those dealing with youth homelessness.
Let me explain the difference in numbers. The Government numbers are official statistics and are closely verified and accredited by the Office for National Statistics. One reason for the differential is that the Centrepoint data includes all initial inquiries to a local authority. The Government report on the total number of homelessness assessments and the numbers of young people owed a homelessness prevention or relief duty. I just wanted to clear up the reason why the numbers are different. The Government numbers form part of the official statistics and follow very robust statistical methodologies.
Clearly, I regret the uptick in homelessness—it is very serious and the Government are doing everything to address it—but the most recent homelessness statistics, published yesterday, show that over 17,000 households had homelessness prevented in the fourth quarter of 2023, and almost 50,000 homeless households were supported to secure accommodation in that same period. This shows that local authorities continue to work hard to prevent and relieve homelessness for all households, including young people.
I want to touch on the issue of care leavers, because this is a very important point; I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for raising it. We know that young people leaving local authority care can be especially vulnerable, which is why, through our strategy on children’s social care reform, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, we are working to increase the number of care leavers living in safe, suitable accommodation and to reduce the rate of homelessness among that vulnerable group. To achieve that, the Government are providing the following money: nearly £100 million for local authorities to increase the number of care leavers who stay living with their foster families up to the age of 21; £53 million to increase the number of young people leaving residential care who receive practical help with move-on accommodation, including support from a key worker—that practical help is very important; and £9.6 million over three years to provide extra support to care leavers at the highest risk of rough sleeping.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about social housing priority need for care leavers. Care leavers have priority need up to the age of 20; the hon. Lady suggested that it should be up to the age of 25. I want it to be clear that once care leavers reach 21, they will continue to have priority need if they are vulnerable because of having been looked after. That will continue.
On relation wider housing support, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn statement that we would restore the local housing allowance rate up to the 30th percentile. That was very important. It took effect in April. It will mean that 1.6 million low-income households will be on average £800 a year better off, and will make it more affordable for young people on benefits to rent properties in the private sector. About one in 10 of those aged 16 to 24 currently lives in the private rented sector. That is one reason why the Renters (Reform) Bill, which passed its Third Reading last week, is so important.
We have talked about building more homes, which I think the entire House would agree is critical. We have the affordable homes programme, which represents £11.5 billion to provide new properties for rent, for low-cost home ownership and for specialist and supported housing. As I have said, we are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment of 1 million new homes within this Parliament.
I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree once again for securing this thought-provoking debate. I admire her determination to tackle the causes and impacts of homelessness, particularly for young people today, which is a determination that the Government and I share. I hope I have underlined the scale, depth and diversity of the investment this Government are making to address this challenge. We know that, as a Government, we cannot solve this issue alone. That is why we value so much the support and commitment of local government, charitable partners and great advocates for the homelessness sector across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and the hon. Member for Strangford.
I thank Members again. Let us keep working towards our shared goal of ending rough sleeping and tackling youth homelessness.
Paula Barker
I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his contribution, which was delivered with his usual aplomb even if he was quite croaky today. We disagree on the issue of net immigration and those factors—we have served on the Home Affairs Committee together. I suggest that the immigration problems are part of the wider issue of the Government not getting to grips with the backlog, and also the significant money they are spending on hotels. I am sure we will have that debate outside this place when he has his voice back in full flow.
As a journalist, the hon. Gentleman spent time on the streets, and he spoke about drug addiction in his usual, knowledgeable fashion. I completely agree that we have to do more to support people with drug and alcohol addiction. For me, that starts with trauma-informed services. Trauma-informed and trauma-led services should be mandatory, and that is a challenge that I pose to my good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), if we are lucky enough to form a Government at the next election.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sadly not in his place, delivered his contribution with his usual knowledge and compassion, and it was very interesting to hear about his contributions in Northern Ireland. I know how much this debate means to the sector, which does so much to serve our communities, and particularly young people. Once again, I thank all Members for being here today, and I hope that my colleagues have taken something away from the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for his valuable contribution. I know, through our many years of friendship, that he understands the issues, and I am committed to ensuring that, in the months ahead, he loses the word “shadow” from his title. We can then start to tackle some of these matters head on, and hopefully together. I applaud his commitment to increasing housing supply, ending section 21 evictions and tackling all forms of homelessness, including youth homelessness. I hope that the shadow Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team considers how we can learn lessons from the last Labour Government. We had practically eradicated homelessness and rough sleeping by the time we left office in 2010. My good friend spoke about Dame Louise Casey, and I hope we can learn lessons from her marvellous work and have a truly cross-departmental strategy.
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful contribution and reply. I totally respect her commitment to these matters but, sadly, I feel that she is a member of a tired Government who have manifestly failed to deliver on their intention with respect to all forms of homelessness. She has been set up to fail in the same way as some of her predecessors. Homelessness may have briefly been a priority for the Government under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but I believe it has since fallen down the agenda.
I finish by imploring right hon. and hon. Members to continue talking about youth homelessness. Please talk up the need for a national youth homelessness strategy and be the voice for those 136,000 young people, because they deserve to have a life well lived in which they can fulfil their potential and realise their dreams, hopes and aspirations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered youth homelessness.
Furnished Holiday Lettings: Taxation
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the taxation of furnished holiday lettings.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I welcome the Minister and other colleagues to their respective places.
This debate arises because of the changes announced in the Budget to the taxation of the furnished holiday letting—FHL—regime, which have already acquired the nom de plume “the staycation tax”. As I mentioned in the Budget debate on 12 March, I am concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences.
I acknowledge the thinking behind the change, because there are areas of the country where local people are having great difficulty renting local properties, and it is possible—I will put it no more strongly than that—that holiday lettings might be contributing to that. In other areas across the UK, however, holiday lettings are not having such a negative impact, and they are a vital component of local economies all around our four nations. That is the case in the Waveney constituency, although I acknowledge—this may be where we have difficulties—that there are significant challenges for local people looking to rent a home in nearby Southwold, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, which is a good one for North Norfolk, where there are clearly problems with housing supply. I put it to him that, in an area such as mine, which has a large number of second homes, the policy change may well lead to more homes coming on to the market to be snapped up by people who are buying them as second homes, making the situation even worse in picturesque places like North Norfolk.
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend may have read my speech, because that is one of the issues that I will highlight, and I will mention some statistics that the Professional Association of Self-Caterers—PASC—kindly provided to me to make that point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing the debate forward. I suspect that I might be about to add a controversial opinion, but we will see how it goes. As a representative of what I believe to be the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom, Strangford, it is my desire to attract more bed nights to the area, and the Airbnb-type scenario was one way in which we felt that could be done. Does the hon. Member agree that the removal of the tax incentive may prohibit people from doing up the old granny flat in the garden, and so prevent the local economy from benefiting from bed nights? I see the benefits of the incentive, and I think it could be to our advantage.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In certain parts of the country, the incentive’s removal might well have benefits, but I argue that it is a rather blunt instrument, which could have unintended consequences in other areas.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I understand the concerns about housing shortages, which I have in my constituency. The answer to the shortage of housing, however, is to build more houses; it is not to punish what is a very important part of the local economy, including in parts of the country like mine. The advantage of such a tax provision is that it allows for the improvement and professionalisation of the sector, which at the end of the day can only improve the visitor offering.
Peter Aldous
I agree with the right hon. Member on both counts. There are other measures being introduced, such as the register, that I believe will help bring professionalism into the sector. In fact, I know from the constituents I have spoken to and the businesses that operate this type of furnished holiday accommodation that they are incredibly professional businesses.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Several owners and operators in East Devon have been in touch with me about the changes, about which there is widespread concern. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should hold a public consultation about the changes—my hon. Friend might be intending to say that—and consider a list of exemptions, for example if a property cannot be a permanent residence because it is on a working farm?
Peter Aldous
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly, and I intend to develop some of those points.
Peter Aldous
I will give way one more time at this stage, after which I will have to make some progress.
Anne Marie Morris
On the basis of the contributions that have been made, does it not seem obvious that what we need is a proper impact assessment of the reform? We need to look at the impact on the economy, the impact on housing and the impact on the tourism sector. I am sure my hon. Friend will also come to the expected impacts on gross value added and on jobs.
Peter Aldous
I agree wholeheartedly. I had planned to raise a lot of the points that have been made; let me now get on to back them up with the evidence.
Since the Budget, I have been contacted by many constituents highlighting their concerns. I am grateful to them for their feedback, as well as to PASC, the Short Term Accommodation Association and the National Farmers Union for all their briefings and advice.
In some ways, I have a sense of déjà vu, in that the proposal mirrors in many ways those put forward in the 2012 Budget to tax Cornish pasties and static caravans. In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated that he had concerns that the current tax regime for FHLs is distorting the market and that there are not enough properties available for long-term rental by local people. Therefore, to make the tax system work better for local communities, he plans to abolish the FHL regime. In the accompanying Red Book, the proposals are described as having the advantages of tax simplification, creating a level playing field and supporting people to live in their own areas. I have concerns that the proposals will not fulfil those objectives, and I hope I can illustrate why.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated that the measure, along with the abolition of the multiple dwellings relief, will raise £0.6 billion of additional receipts by 2028-29. That figure pales into insignificance compared with the potential loss of value added and local jobs, which I shall outline shortly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for securing the debate. In a response that I had from the Chancellor last week on this very issue, he talked about housing and the distortion for local people, but there is no evidence that if these houses went on sale they would become affordable houses by any manner of means. To echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is many years since the housing charity Shelter told me that there were more second homes in Norway than in Scotland, but there were more first homes in Norway as well. The point is, let us have more first homes, but let us not be damaging the very weak economy of many of Scotland’s islands by doing that.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which he made particularly well. Hopefully, it will also come out as I move forward in my speech.
In the first instance, it is necessary for me to set out what I would describe as a few home truths and to set the record straight. First, it is important to point out that the FHL regime is not a tax loophole; it was introduced in 1984 specifically to cater for the fact that a holiday let business is very different from a private rental business. Forty years on, that remains the case, and it should be pointed out that strict criteria are in place if people wish to move into the regime.
Secondly, it should be emphasised that furnished holiday lettings are a long-standing economic lifeline for many coastal and rural areas.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a lot of very good points, specifically about these lets being a lifeline for areas. I was recently visited by representatives of the furnished holiday lets association in Scotland, who feel that they have been hit by a double whammy: this legislation and the short-term let licensing legislation in Scotland. Should there not have been a joined-up approach? Would it not have been better for the Government to speak to the devolved Administration and find a way forward for the whole industry, rather than hamper one of Scotland’s biggest and most profitable sectors?
Peter Aldous
I think the hon. Lady has hit on the way forward. The solution to this problem—if indeed there is a problem—needs to be sorted out locally, in consultation with the devolved Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with local authorities elsewhere in the UK.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. In April last year, the Welsh Government increased to 182 days a year the occupancy threshold that allows holiday lets to qualify for business rates. They have also allowed local authorities to increase council tax premiums to up to 300% in cases where that threshold is not met. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Welsh Government policy is destroying legitimate business among holiday let operations, and damaging the local economy?
Peter Aldous
I do agree, and that point illustrates that this is a multifaceted problem or issue. A whole host of organisations need to sit around the table and come up with solutions that are bespoke and right for their councils or counties, or indeed for their devolved nations.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is bang on. He is essentially saying that one size does not fit all and that we should find the right solution for every place, because the current provision is a very blunt instrument.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further observation; he is right.
As I was saying, my second point is that it should be emphasised that furnished holiday lets are a long-standing economic lifeline for many coastal and rural areas. The regime supports micro and small businesses that are the cornerstone of many visitor economies. Abolishing it would hurt those businesses—including farmers who have diversified into tourism, as well as other businesses such as pubs, which rely on the lets for trade—and PASC estimates that even a modest 20% reduction in furnished holiday lets could result in the loss of £1.9 billion GVA and 46,000 jobs. The former figure is considerably higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the additional tax that will be generated.
Thirdly, furnished holiday lets are not the cause of the housing crisis, as I think colleagues have mentioned. PASC estimates that a total of 197,000 properties in the UK fall within the FHL regime. Due to planning restrictions, 39% of those holiday let properties can only be used for holiday purposes. That means that 76,000 furnished holiday lets could not be used as residential dwellings, and only 121,000 furnished holiday lets have planning permission to be used as residential dwellings. The context is important: those 121,000 dwellings without planning restrictions have been established not in the past three or four years but over many decades; however, they represent 0.4% of the 30.1 million total UK housing stock and just 40% of the annual house building target of 300,000 new homes. Although there might be anecdotal evidence to suggest that private rental landlords are moving into the short-term let sector, PASC can find no quantitative data to support that conclusion. Indeed, less than 2% of traditional short-term let businesses had previously rented their properties out as a long-term let.
Anne Marie Morris
Is it not also clear, following the Renters (Reform) Bill, that there has been a haemorrhaging of landlords who do not wish to be in the private rented sector? As a consequence, they used to go to holiday lets, so holiday let individuals are hardly going to be going back to the private rented sector, which they wanted to leave and are leaving in droves.
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend makes a good point that reinforces my arguments about the unintended consequences of this proposal.
My fourth point is that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that furnished holiday lets have a disproportionate impact on house prices. As part of the consultation on the proposed introduction of the new planning use class for short-term lets in England, the Great British Holiday campaign commissioned an economic impact study by Frontier Economics on the size, growth and economic importance of traditional holiday lets in rural and coastal communities—unfortunately just in England, but I am sure that is equally relevant to Scotland and Wales. Frontier Economics found that there was no relationship between popular holiday let areas and the growth rate of real house prices between 2015 and 2022.
My final home truth is that there would be unintended consequences of a change to this taxation regime.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
While listening to the hon. Gentleman, it occurred to me that extended family or community members who come back home to an island often use such holiday lets—I could give personal examples from the past year of people returning from New Zealand, Canada and even mainland Scotland. Such properties have a community health aspect to them, over and above the money that they are raising in the economy.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is correct.
The unintended consequences of this taxation regime are that there would be thousands of job losses; a proliferation of empty properties, which could not be used for long-term lets for planning reasons; and a loss of billions of pounds to coastal and rural areas. According to PASC, of its members whose businesses would become non-viable and would have to be sold, 39% believed that the most likely buyer would be a second-home owner; 37% that the property would be bought by another holiday operator; and 16% that the purchaser would come from outside the area. In short, the policy would provide very limited assistance to the group that it is seeking to support: local people looking to rent a local home.
I will finish quickly and not take any more interventions to give the Minister an opportunity to respond. I have nine questions for him. First, what is the Treasury’s evidence to suggest that abolishing the holiday letting regime will encourage a significant number of businesses to convert from furnished holiday lets to the private rented sector, so as to justify the harm that it will cause to tens of thousands of small and microbusinesses? Secondly, why was there no consultation prior to the proposal, and will the Treasury now commit to a full public consultation due to the significant number of businesses that expressed concerns subsequently? Thirdly, has the Treasury considered the potential unintended consequences of abolishing the FHL regime, including the risk that it will lead to more empty second homes in rural and coastal areas? Fourthly, if the abolition of the FHL regime results in a reduction of furnished holiday lets, what evidence does the Treasury have to suggest that this vital bedstock of many rural and coastal economies will be sustained by other visitor accommodation?
Fifthly, will the Treasury consider the recommendations of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and reverse the mortgage interest relief restrictions that have stifled the supply of the homes that renters desperately need? Sixthly, why does the Treasury consider that a bespoke tailor-designed scheme for holiday lets that has operated successfully for 40 years should now be abolished if there is scant evidence to suggest that different tax regimes have resulted in private rental landlords switching to furnished holiday lets? Seventhly, will the Treasury ensure that the abolition of the FHL regime will not result in a group of people who are essentially entrepreneurs being retrospectively taxed at a rate that is 4% higher than the top rate of capital gains tax that applies to a passive investor of listed shares?
Eighthly, does the Treasury consider that the 5,000 new furnished holiday let properties in the UK that PASC guesses may have been created annually since 2016—so 40,000 properties—have had a significant impact on the current housing crisis when compared with the 30.1 million UK homes, 1.5 million empty or vacant homes and the commitment to build 300,000 new homes each year? Finally, will the Treasury align the VAT treatment of holiday lets with that of long-term lets if the policy intention is to align the tax treatment of furnished holiday lets and the private rented sector, or will actively managed FHLs now face a more punitive tax regime than a passive private rental investor?
In conclusion, the proposal does not create a level playing field. If it is to be equitable, it will be necessary to complicate the tax system, not simplify it, and it will have a very marginal impact, if any, on enabling local people to rent homes in their local area. The industry is asking that the Treasury undertakes a full public consultation of any legislation, which I personally think is being remarkably polite.
I cannot see a case for changing the current regime. There should be no future finance Bill to legislate for these changes, and like the proposed taxes on Cornish pasties and static caravans, the proposals should be shelved. Instead, a consultation should take place so that a more targeted localised approach, as opposed to this rather blunt instrument, can be worked up by Government, the devolved Assemblies and local government. That way, more focused and localised solutions can be put in place where they are needed, so as to ensure that more properties are available for long-term rent by local people.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising this issue today. It is a topic that I have discussed previously with him and with many hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I am happy to continue to discuss it. I should say up front that there are no plans for a consultation, but that does not mean that hon. Members cannot engage with me.
At the moment, there is broad recognition that the current system is contributing to some distortions. My hon. Friend mentioned having a bit of déjà vu. In my former capacity as Tourism Minister, I travelled around the country and stood in this Chamber discussing the issue. I had colleague after colleague and industry after industry making claims for and demanding the exact policy that we are introducing, so hon. Members need to recognise that there is another side to the argument.
Although my hon. Friend outlined a different pattern in his part of the country, there are parts of the country where the current regime, with beneficial rates for FHL properties, creates an incentive for a disproportionately large number of properties to be FHL—short-term rentals, rather than long-term rentals—which is causing problems. I have heard hoteliers and owners of B&Bs say that the current system is not fair and reasonable. I have heard owners of pubs, bars and restaurants complain that the large number of short-term lets and FHL properties is undermining their value proposition.
I gently say to hon. Members that we all have colleagues from different parts of the country and there is another side to the argument, although I understand the vehemence and strength of feeling in the Chamber today. I know the pattern is mixed across the country, but the problem is that we cannot do tax treatment, such as income tax relief, ward by ward or constituency by constituency. As hon. Members know, we have a whole range of other initiatives to encourage the supply of housing more broadly and limit the impact, including through local taxation and restrictions on housing.
We are proposing not to abolish FHLs, which play a vital role in our tourism ecosystem across the country, but to change their tax treatment to put them on an equal footing and create a level playing field with long-term lets. The problem is that if I were an investor thinking of buying a property in a certain area, it would make pure economic sense for me to get a short-term let rather than a long-term let. Therefore, in certain communities across the country, when a new property becomes available, there is an incentive for an investor to straightforwardly go for a short-term let rather than a long-term let because there is beneficial tax treatment. We are not eliminating the tax incentives but levelling the playing field so that the perverse incentive no longer exists.
Anne Marie Morris
If the Minister is unwilling to undertake a consultation, is he willing to look at a carve-out—an exemption—for properties that cannot be used in the private rented sector because of covenants on them? That was discussed by the Office of Tax Simplification. Will he look at that seriously?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which she has raised with me previously. I should put on the record that many hon. Members in the Chamber have raised concerns about the implementation of this proposal with me. The challenge is that one of the goals is simplification, and when we start moving into the area of carve-outs and exemptions, it opens up the system to challenges and potential abuse. I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. She will always hear from Ministers that we keep tax policy under review, but as soon as we start moving to an exemption here and an exemption there, it causes great difficulties. I also thank PASC for its constructive engagement with me on this issue and for giving me information.
I have had lots of correspondence and have engaged with colleagues, and I want to make this very clear. There is a belief that when we said we were abolishing the FHL tax regime, that meant we were abolishing FHLs. No, of course we are not. As I said, they play a vital role in the visitor economy, but we want to change the tax policy. The intention is for the tax reform to apply to all properties.
There will continue to be benefits. After the abolition of the FHL tax regime, a higher rate paying landlord with mortgage interest costs of £12,000 per year would still get up to £2,400 taken off their income tax bill through the relief. If they spend a further £8,000—for example, on insurance, letting agent fees and replacing domestic items such as sofas, fridges, washing machines—they could save a further £3,200 in income tax by using the reliefs that are available for all landlords. It is about levelling the playing field. There will still be tax incentives, but we do not want that distortion. When somebody buys a new property or an existing property, there is a false incentive that is causing some problems, because human behaviour that naturally seeks a better return on investment leads them towards short-term lets, rather than long-term lets. That is what we are trying to correct.
Mr Carmichael
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. When I intervened, I should have pointed out that I have a declarable interest registered. I apologise to the Chamber for not doing so at the time and I hope the position is now clarified.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Okay. That allows me to shorten what I was going to say.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
World ME Day
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World ME Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and I am extremely grateful to colleagues from across the House for their attendance.
There is no single universal experience of myalgic encephalomyelitis, otherwise known as ME. For those living with the condition, the distressing and familiar pattern can be all too clear: initial signs of fatigue, a drastic change in physical ability and activity, and the loss of mental focus and confidence.
The condition can begin after a battle with a viral infection, but for others the start of symptoms can simply seem unexplainable. Answers and hope are sought by visiting medical professionals, but too often ME patients are misdiagnosed or, at worst, dismissed entirely. Parents and carers who simply try their best can be chastised, as a once healthy person—a loved one—is slowly taken away by this cruel condition.
As a country, we have made tremendous progress in combatting so many diseases and illnesses. There has been a welcome step change in medical advancement and attitudes, but people with ME have not seen that progress—in fact, I would argue that they have been left behind. This debate provides an opportunity to share the experiences of people living with the condition ahead of World ME Day on 12 May and for us to consider what more can be done to improve experiences and outcomes for people across the United Kingdom. Today we are joined in person and online by many people who live with this condition, and I thank them for their continued strength.
When I was appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we were in the middle of fighting the pandemic. Of course, priorities and resources were naturally stretched, but the emergence of long covid saw renewed attention brought to ME. For me, the fight against that illness was not just an important policy area but simply very personal. My cousin, who is here today, has an amazing daughter who bravely battles this condition. Until the age of 13, she was a happy, healthy teenager. She was academically gifted and a talented netball player. Seven years later, today, her life has completely changed.
As Secretary of State, I set out my vision for a new approach to ME chronic fatigue syndrome in May 2022. I co-chaired a roundtable with the chief scientific adviser, Professor Lucy Chappell, to bring together experts, including people with lived experience, to discuss what needs to happen next. I also announced the Government’s intention to develop a cross-Government delivery plan for England. Two years later, although Ministers have understandably changed, I hope the determination that I had to tackle this condition remains in Government.
I was pleased to see the publication of an interim delivery plan by the Government in August last year. Supporting people with ME should be a cross-Government initiative. Although the work is rightly led by the Department of Health and Social Care, I was pleased to see that the plan was jointly published with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am very pleased to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to raise the issue of the involvement of multiple Departments, and it relates to my constituent Sienna Wemyss, who is 16 years old. Sienna was diagnosed in 2022, but she still has not got an education, care and health plan. She got a place at our local Barking and Dagenham College, but when she arrived there, despite her mother having spoken to the teachers, she was sent home because she could not attend. She finds it difficult even to comb her hair, so she is at home and has lost out on her education.
Does the right hon. Member agree that it is really important that not only health but education plays its role? While I am on my feet, I should say that Sienna has to travel as there are no local health facilities to respond to her needs and to care for her. She has to travel into University College Hospital—miles from my constituents in Barking. Does the right hon. Member further agree that there should be local healthcare facilities to respond to the needs of people with this condition?
Sir Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree with her on both points. She first emphasises the importance of the Government’s final plan being a proper cross-Government plan; I hope the Minister will speak to the cross-Government nature of the work that he is leading on their behalf. I also agree with her point about local health support. That must also be addressed and covered in the final plan that is published. I have heard very similar stories from constituents and others, and I completely agree with what she said. I thank her again for that intervention.
When I committed the Government to developing a cross-Government delivery plan, I stated in a written statement to this House:
“officials will work with stakeholders ahead of publishing the delivery plan later this year.”
Despite the commitment that the delivery plan would be published by the end of 2022, it was not until August 2023 that an interim plan was published. In the ministerial foreword to that interim delivery plan, the Minister’s immediate predecessor—my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—stated:
“The final delivery plan will be published later this year”.
That was the end of last year. We are now in May 2024, approaching exactly two years since I made the initial commitment.
I am also now hearing disturbing reports that, despite two years of waiting, the final delivery plan may not be published until the end of this year. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister has committed the country to a general election by the end of this year. We also know that when that general election is called, there will be no Government publication of any sort, which means there is absolutely no time to waste. I ask the Minister, when he responds, to give a specific commitment to the House that the final delivery plan will be published before the summer recess—or at the very latest, just after.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the leadership that he has shown, and continues to show, on this issue. I have been contacted by Phoebe van Dyke, a young woman living in my constituency who is struggling with ME. She is concerned about the extent of the skills of the general medical profession: too many of the doctors she encounters do not understand enough about the condition. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the delivery plan that he wants the Government to bring forward will ensure that there is much better training across the range of medical professionals, so that they have the skills to understand the condition?
Sir Sajid Javid
I assure my hon. Friend that that is definitely what I want to see in the plan; perhaps more important now, however, is to hear that commitment from the Minister. It is touched on in the interim plan, but we all want to see that issue, among the others, addressed in that final cross-Government plan.
The interim delivery plan set out some of the current challenges that we must address to improve outcomes and experiences for individuals with ME. We must ensure that the final delivery plan focuses at least on two key areas: outcomes and experiences. However, making progress in these areas also requires us to address more fundamental problems. For example, there is a huge cultural problem, when it comes to ME, with a lack of medical understanding and awareness. There is a critical lack of data and research, and there is still no existing cure or even treatments. It is estimated—this number is often cited; I use it myself—that about 250,000 people are living with ME in the UK, but even that figure is 10 years old, highlighting the lack of data and research in this field. Without a clear dataset and understanding, tackling the issue of course becomes an even bigger uphill battle.
That is why there are research projects such as DecodeME. They are vital because they help to increase understanding and they serve as a critical platform for future work.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that another issue faced by constituents is that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that were introduced are not being used by every single trust in the country? I think that only 28% of NHS trusts are using the NICE guidelines. Does he agree that consistency of treatment and approach would be an important step in ensuring that people can get the care that they need?
Sir Sajid Javid
Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. Indeed, those guidelines were changed while I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I remember welcoming them, but the expectation of course was that they would be properly followed. As the hon. Member says, in some 70% of cases that does not seem to be the case. We all want that to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to pick up that point when he responds.
Another example of research is a groundbreaking project on long covid and ME diagnostics called LOCOME. It is co-led by Action for ME, the University of Edinburgh and a computational biology company called PrecisionLife. It is hoped that that new project, which is utilising the data that has been gathered from the DecodeME project, will provide insights that will be able to create the first predictive diagnostic tools for ME and long covid. I take this opportunity to thank the charity Action for ME for its world-leading work on the project, its crucial support and the research and campaigning that it does to improve ME research and outcomes.
It is vital that we continue to support organisations such as Action for ME and researchers in this way. The focus of World ME Day in 2024, this year, will be to build a “Global Voice For ME”. In that spirit, it is important that we collaborate with allies across the globe to further research in this area. However, we know that, even with more research, it will be a long journey to achieve our desired outcomes. That is why improving the experiences of those living with ME, and their families, is also vital.
I know from my own engagement that individuals with lived experience often feel dismissed. I recall a recent Channel 4 report that even highlighted the case of a family who saw social services investigate the care of their daughter because they believed that she was being kept in bed against her will. If it were not for campaigning organisations such as Action for ME, the ME Association, the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis, Forward ME and the World ME Alliance as well as the work of incredible individuals such as Sean O’Neill, who I believe joins us today and who has led an inspiring campaign in memory of his daughter, Maeve, the situation would feel almost hopeless. That is how it would feel if we did not have these people battling for more work to be done on ME. It is because of them that the case of this community is being heard, and having served in Government for so long myself, I know that when people speak up with the support of many honourable colleagues from right across the House, the Government must listen.
This year, 2024, marks 55 years since the World Health Organisation officially acknowledged ME. For too long, we have failed to recognise the severity of the condition for thousands of people across the UK. As we mark World ME Day on 12 May, we must renew our commitment to improving outcomes and experiences for everyone affected. It is great to see so many hon. Members from across the House in the Chamber, and I am grateful to everyone who has attended today’s debate in the Public Gallery, as well as those who may be joining online. Where such support exists, there is always hope.
The ambition is to improve the lives of people with the condition today, and to ensure that future generations have a brighter future. Helping make that ambition a reality is now the responsibility of the Minister, and I look forward to his response and the contribution of other hon. Members.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to be speaking at this important time, ahead of World ME Day on 12 May. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) for securing the debate and for continuing to champion the cause, which is so needed. I also thank Action for ME for its research and campaigning, and for providing visibility for so many people who have ME who are bedbound and housebound, and cannot speak for themselves. That is why I have been championing this condition, because so many of my constituents have been in touch with me.
To be honest, when I was pregnant, I had very severe morning sickness. It was not morning sickness: it meant that I was bedbound for many months. I got an inkling, I think, of what is suffered by people who have ME. However, they suffer for so long with such little hope because, as the right hon. Member said, there is no treatment and no cure. To raise those issues, and to talk about the research and treatment that are needed, and the understanding that is needed in workplaces, schools and the healthcare system, is important. This debate will mark a huge step forward for that.
ME is a chronic illness that affects multiple body systems and leaves those suffering unable to take part in everyday activities. In the UK, we know that at least 250,00 people suffer from ME. However, that is an outdated statistic that has not been updated for over a decade. The real figure is likely to be far higher. An estimated 1.3 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms, and 50% of people with long covid have symptoms that mirror ME. One in four of those is housebound. Women are five times more likely to develop ME, and to have more symptoms from their ME, than men. I think that might be at the heart of why it has been such an underfunded and neglected disease, because it is predominantly women who are suffering more than men.
People with ME suffer disproportionately high levels of stigma and lack of understanding compared with other major chronic illnesses. That ignorance makes it more of a challenge to address and treat, and they suffer misunderstandings in education, work and healthcare. Many constituents have shared such stories with me. They have told me stories about personal independence payment assessments as well, which do not meet the needs of a fluctuating condition, and do not take account of the condition in the timings and the way that people are assessed, leading to them receiving less support from the state.
Over the last 10 years, only £8.05 million has been spent on ME research. If that had been equitable to other illnesses, ME would have received over £10 million or more. Without urgent research, those estimated 250,000 people in the UK living with the illness—and many more—will continue to feel unseen and left behind. That inaction comes at a significant cost. Without research, people living with ME will continue to suffer from a range of debilitating symptoms that push them towards the edge of society. The links with long covid offer hope for research, and should be entirely embraced. I hope that it will be embraced in the plan that we hope will be published soon and that the Minister will tell us about in his speech.
The Government claim that they want to get people back to work, yet they continue to underfund vital investment in ME that could help thousands of people to rejoin the workforce. While the Government continue to dither and delay on that plan, others are stepping up. Action for ME is co-leading a pioneering research project into ME to uncover its genetic causes. It is called DecodeME and is funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research. Understanding how ME affects people is the first step towards developing effective treatments.
Although I and others welcomed the Government’s announcement of the cross-Government ME delivery plan, which was announced by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove on ME Day in May 2022, the publication of the final plan, as has been outlined, has been delayed again and again, but it is badly needed by sufferers across the country. My constituents are feeling the direct implications of the lack of funding for research. I especially want to highlight the inadequacy of secondary care.
Zoe, one of my constituents, wrote:
“I’m lucky that my GP is great and recognised the symptoms early and found me a good clinic to go to. But ongoing support in secondary care is non-existent. Compared to others, I was…lucky to have what I got, but it was six appointments with a consultant and his team and that’s it. No ongoing care, no ongoing support. Because of the complex nature of the illness I’ve had to be referred to multiple secondary care clinics to manage all my ongoing symptoms. I go to St George’s, Bart’s, Kings, UCL and the Royal Free, at best they’re well meaning, but not well educated about ME, at worst I experience a huge amount of medical gas lighting or complete indifference, disbelief or disinterest in the ME. (I had such a poor experience with secondary care this week that the stress of dealing with the doctor/clinic has further exacerbated the flare of symptoms.) It’s a lot to expect a person with ME to manage.”
Just yesterday, I was walking through Putney and Donna in my constituency came up to me to tell me about the hugely life-limiting impact that ME has had on her. She was in a wheelchair and said that that trip out to get a prescription means that she will not be able to go out again for the next two weeks. She said she is constantly misunderstood and neglected in the health system.
Recently, the cases of Carla, Milly and Karen—all young women in hospital with severe ME and struggling to access the care they need, the appropriate feeding, tests and medical care—paint a picture of a broken system. They have been treated as psychological cases, not medical and physical. Carla, Milly and Karen have been let down time and again. I urge the Government not to permit the growing cases of ME across the country to morph into a health crisis for which there is no cure.
I will end with a call for five actions: first, ending the stigma and taboo in healthcare situations, work and schools; secondly, the full implementation of NICE’s 2021 guidelines on ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, including diagnosis across the country; thirdly, funding research into severe ME and joining that up with research into long covid; fourthly, looking into the situation in care for Carla, Milly and Karen and poor hospital care for all other sufferers of ME; and fifthly, publishing, funding and implementing the cross-departmental ME delivery plan before the general election.
I hope the Minister has written all of that down. I hope to hear about it later, and I hope that this debate will mark a step change in the understanding of people with ME and hope for the future.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on his leadership on this issue. We know that he started the train of getting work done on ME when he was Health Secretary. Too often in this place, we move on from Departments and never speak of them again, but he has not. He has championed the cause of the sufferers of ME, and indeed their families, with real vigour.
It seems bizarre in this place to refer to long covid with a welcome message, but long covid has shone a spotlight back on ME. We know that it is a post-viral condition, but we do not know why. The number of sufferers of long covid has given us an opportunity to look again at ME. Hopefully, in this place some of us will begin to understand more and broaden our knowledge of the condition. My right hon. Friend taken a new approach, and my constituents certainly wish to extend their thanks to him for that.
I always say that I am blessed with constituents in Romsey and Southampton North who are not only articulate and willing to share their views with me, but in many instances are often experts as well. Professor Sir Stephen Holgate contacted me ahead of the debate to make the pertinent point that, for sufferers of ME, many of whom have been bedbound for years, surely I could spend an hour of my time raising their plight in this Chamber. I am certainly very pleased to do so. He highlighted, as did the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), the well-established sex bias among sufferers of ME. Of the 17,000 sufferers recently surveyed, women made up 83.5% of the respondents. We know that they are five times more likely to suffer than their male counterparts.
I say to the Minister, very gently—an unusual stance for me—that we have to do more about the bias that exists in medical research and clinical trials. We have to stop the situation, which prevails to this day, where too often conditions suffered by women are portrayed as them being simply hysterical. ME is a serious condition. It is not all in the mind, as my constituents have been told on too many occasions. We need to ensure not only more investment into research to find the causes of ME and hopefully more effective treatments—and of course, the holy grail, a cure—but research focused on the women who need it.
I welcome the cross-Government delivery plan that was set in train by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, but we need to see it. We need to see not just the interim version but the final plan, and we need it to be delivered. We need it to be rolled out into every trust and integrated care board. We need it to be effective for our constituents, which brings me on to my next point: my constituent. I was contacted by a mother, Elaine. The point she made in her email was that she wants her voice and the voice of her daughter to be heard. Her daughter was a high achiever, training to be a dancer. She had already secured 5 A-levels when she was struck down with ME. The words that she used are heartbreaking. She has been stigmatised, gaslighted and ridiculed. As a result, she now avoids doctors. She avoids going to get the very help that she needs because she fears that her condition will lead to ridicule.
That is simply not acceptable in a 21st-century health system. We have to do more to ensure greater awareness not just in the Chamber today, but out in our ICBs and GP surgeries, so that the sufferers who are presenting for the first time do not get ridiculed or labelled as hysterical women, but actually get the help that they need. We cannot have a situation where our constituents are avoiding the people they need to turn to for help.
As I have said, there is bias that we have to overcome. There is a gap in research funding. Only £8 million has been spent on ME research over the last 10 years, which is simply disproportionate to the number of sufferers—it should be several times that figure—and we still know less about every aspect of female biology than we do about male biology. I would like to hear a commitment from the Minister that, while he is in this role, he will do his utmost to eliminate the gender bias that we still see in medical research.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) not just on securing the debate, but on the groundbreaking work that he did in establishing the delivery plan. We are all grateful for that.
We all come to this debate with our own experiences. My first constituency case was nearly 30 years ago. I remember it well. It was heartbreaking: a young women who had a full-time job, was bringing up her family with two children and was active in her local community and trade union, went down with a condition that she never understood. It was not recognised for a long time, even by a local doctor. There was a lot of stigma attached to it at that time—I think a few members of the media were running stories like that. It took her years and a lot of support before she could come to terms with it and re-engage fully with her life.
Debates like this give us the opportunity to share those experiences, but they also prompt organisations to send us briefings. I congratulate Action for ME on the excellent briefing that it has circulated. It has brought us up to speed on a whole range of issues and focused us in advance. I want to respond in support of the half a dozen demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). The first is about the recognition of the consequences and scale of ME in our society. One area that we have not explored enough is the mental health consequences of ME. In the cases that I have dealt with, ME has led people virtually to breakdown, because of the frustration of no longer being able to live an active life, as well as facing all the barriers and the stigma. We do not fully understand the range of consequences.
I fully agree with the point about research. Demand is doubling, at least. I was shocked that the figures in the briefing were so low after all this time and all the debates that we have had. Long covid has also brought a new dimension to the debate. I am receiving lots of representations from constituents about long covid; it is like we are going through the ME process all over again. I congratulate Action for ME. As the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, the establishment of the centre of excellence in Edinburgh is a huge breakthrough; it will be a world leader.
I thought that the NICE guidelines were being rolled out more effectively, so I was shocked that 76% of ICBs do not have a specialist service. We need to think about how that has gone wrong and what will put it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney made a point about benefits. The Government are yet again reforming the benefit system, and I am worried about the reforms. I have met with a range of disability groups, and people are petrified. There is real fear out there, including among people with this particular condition. Anyone who has assisted a constituent through the appeal process understands how difficult it is to get it across that someone has a fluctuating condition, as was mentioned. I do not criticise clinicians, but there is still a lack of thorough understanding among some clinicians about the condition.
I want to make one further point, which has not been raised. I have come across case after case in which protection at work has not been in place, and people have lost their jobs, promotion, or access to training and so on. The reasonable adjustments that we thought we had built into the legislation have not been made. That needs to be reviewed going into the next period. There will be new employment legislation, certainly if there is a change of Government, and perhaps whether or not there is a change of Government. There are issues about the quality of employed life that have to be addressed, and this is one of them.
I am grateful for the debate, because I will be able to report back to constituents that Parliament has discussed the matter. I have the same confidence that the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove has: when a group of MPs works on a cross-party basis and makes noise like this, civil servants and Ministers listen. I hope that the Minister can report today particularly on the timing of the delivery plan, which will give us so much hope.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I will call Jim Shannon next. If he would not mind, I ask him to voluntarily restrict his comments so that at 5.08 pm I can call the Opposition spokesperson for five minutes and the Minister for 10 minutes, because I think people want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I certainly will do exactly that; I had planned a five-minute contribution.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on highlighting World ME Day. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). When I was first introduced as an elected representative, as a Member of the Assembly at Stormont back in 1998, a person with ME came to me one day. I will be honest: I had no idea what it was. But I knew one thing, which was that that lady was ill. I am no wiser or smarter than anybody else, and I am not a doctor, but I can recognise pain. I can recognise a disability that hurts. It was making her life absolutely unworkable.
I helped her with her benefits; incidentally, we won on appeal. We won because if I could see what that lady was going through, the four people on the panel could see it, too. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the appeals process. I always ask the person, “How many days a week are you ill?” and the person will tell you. Sometimes they are ill for a week, sometimes they are not ill and sometimes they are ill for three of the seven days. The point I am making is that they are ill, and it is a case of proving that.
The article by Hope 4 ME & Fibro Northern Ireland really summarises how the ME community feels:
“In recent times, the landscape of ME has undergone a transformation, with COVID-19 emerging as the most common trigger for this chronic illness. The intersection of these two health challenges has resulted in a significant increase in the number of people affected by ME. An estimated 55+ million individuals worldwide are living with the debilitating effects of this condition.”
It is an epidemic across the world.
“Amidst these escalating numbers, Hope 4 ME & Fibro Northern Ireland proudly stands alongside World ME Alliance members across the globe. We collectively amplify support for initiatives that seek to address the multifaceted impact of ME on individuals and communities alike.”
As an active Member of Parliament, a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and former councillor—I think this is now my 39th year in elected service—I have seen the debilitating effects suffered by those with ME suffer. One of the harsh realities is that there is no cure. Individuals grappling with ME often endure both the physical toll of the illness and the stigmas that accompany it. It is imperative that we as a global community and in this House come together to address these gaps in understanding, treatment and research. That is where we in this place have a part to play. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove set the scene well, as did others who have spoken; those who follow will tell it again.
I do not believe that we have done more than scratch the surface of fulfilling our obligation to those who are in inexplicable pain daily and who are made to feel as if it is somehow only in their head. It is not. I am not a doctor, but I can see pain; I can see agony; I can see trauma. I can see people who need help. If I can do that, everybody in this room could do the same, because that is what we do every day when we deal with people. They live feeling ashamed of an illness, when most other illnesses are accepted as being out of the victim’s hands. There is work to do in how our health and benefits Departments view ME—there is a big role for them to play—and subsequently treat those who suffer from ME and associated illnesses. Support should be offered not just to them, but also to the families—never forget the families. It is not just that one person suffering; the whole family suffers, because they can see the pain and the agony. Undoubtedly, the burden is often shared with the entire household, emotionally, physically and financially.
On World ME Day, we need to be aware that the people we may see for a brief moment may be fighting a battle with pain that we cannot fully understand. We cannot share that pain, but we can hopefully appreciate what they are saying. It is our job in this place to fight harder for them. For them, this debate is a continuation of that very battle they have fought. We fight today alongside them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I will start by declaring an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) not just for bringing forward this debate, but for the work he has done. It is the second anniversary of the publication of a report produced by the APPG called “Rethinking ME”. As Health Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman came to its launch event here in Parliament, and that was very much appreciated by the ME community. More importantly, under his direction, the Department of Health and Social Care started engaging with the APPG in a way that had not happened previously, to learn about our findings and recommendations from the report.
Following that, the interim delivery plan for ME was announced and the consultation opened up for those with lived experience. The right hon. Gentleman’s hand was all over that work, which has really been transformational in getting the opinions of those who are actually living with ME on a day-to-day basis. The publication of the final plan, however, has been delayed several times, as we have heard already. I will press the Minister on this: we need to know when the final delivery plan will be produced. We do not want it to be after a general election, because another Government might mean different priorities. We need that plan now.
Another step that has taken the situation forward for those with ME was the publication of the new NICE guidelines in 2021. That replaced the previous guidelines, which had recommended graded exercise therapy as a treatment for ME—a treatment that many had undertaken, and many had had their symptoms made far worse as a result. It was good to see the publication of those guidelines, but there is still much more to be done. We heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) how this condition impacts women far more than men, so there has to be a focus on women in research, treatment and diagnosis.
People with ME experience a lot of issues, such as a lack of understanding from healthcare professionals, as was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That leads to delays in diagnosis and to inappropriate treatments. We are still hearing of people who have been forced through graded exercise—that is, the old NICE guidelines, not the new ones. Parents of children with ME find themselves subject to child protection investigations; that has to stop. Of course, many people face difficulties negotiating the welfare system, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). According to Ann Innes, a welfare rights adviser with the ME Association,
“Repeated assessments are a huge drain on people with ME. They put them back considerably, in terms of their health”.
One of the areas of greatest concern is the treatment of those with severe ME. It is estimated that one in four people with ME has it severely, which means they are house-bound or bed-bound and need 24-hour care. Between 2017 and 2021, 62 deaths have been attributed to ME, and the tragic death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill highlights the need for urgent action. Maeve was repeatedly hospitalised and discharged due to a lack of specialist services for ME patients. The absence of known treatments meant that her diagnosis sadly came too late. I pay tribute to her dad Sean O’Neill, who joins us this afternoon, for the work he has done.
Over the next couple of months, the APPG will be taking evidence from those affected by severe ME. I encourage Members present to join us for those sessions, where we will hear what we can do as parliamentarians and what we should be doing. If outcomes are to improve, increased funding for biomedical research is vital. I ask the Minister how much funding there will be, how it will be delivered and where we will see that. I know that I am out of time, but I will pay tribute quickly to a couple of people: the Countess of Mar from the other place, who has sadly had to retire, but she has done decades of work; Sonya Chowdhury from Action for ME, who joins us; Forward ME; the ME Association; and all those affected by ME and their families, who have done so much work to bring the issue to the attention of Members in this place.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on securing this important debate and on the work he not only did as Health Secretary, but continues to do as a Member of Parliament on ME, which we know is a profoundly debilitating and chronic condition that affects various systems across the body. Figures estimate that at least 250,000 people in the UK live with it. However, it is estimated that upwards of 1.3 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms following a covid-19 infection. As we have heard, women are five times more likely to develop ME than men, and they experience more symptoms than men.
Many parallels have been drawn between ME and long covid, given that research has indicated that at least half of those living with long covid have symptoms that directly mirror those of ME. As someone who continues to suffer from the effects of long covid, those symptoms are all too familiar to me: a draining fatigue that never seems to go away; constantly disturbed sleep and an endless feeling of exhaustion; and a debilitating brain fog that can strike at the most inconvenient of moments.
I just want to place on the record that I have managed to control my long covid for the best part of two years, but this week has been a very bad week for me; I was in bed for all of today, and I have only come in to give this speech. The reason that there is a bundle of tissues here is because the sweats just hit me while walking into work. I do understand—I have lived with the experience of symptoms similar to ME—and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the impact it has on people in work, because we do not know which days will be our good days and our bad days, and sadly we are judged against our bad days. That is true.
We need to educate employers about ME and long covid so that reasonable adjustments can be made, and about changes to the welfare system. When I was on my very worst of days, very early on after I contracted covid-19, I would have been signed off work if I had turned up for a work capability assessment, because it was obvious to all. On my best days, though, people would think, “There’s nothing wrong with him,” so if I had the misfortune of having a work capability assessment on one of my better days, I would then be put into work when I was not capable. We must attend to those issues across Government.
We know that ME costs the UK economy about £3.3 billion a year, and that number is growing. We need far better understanding of this debilitating condition and its impact on the day-to-day lives of too many people. That is why Labour is committed to putting Britain at the front of the queue for treatments by boosting clinical trial activity in the NHS. We will speed up recruitment to trials and give more people the chance to participate. We will link up clinical trial registries to create national standing registries, and harness the power of the NHS app to invite eligible participants to take part in research studies for which they are eligible. We also need to rebuild the system so that it recognises the impact of post-viral conditions like ME and equips people with the tools needed to work with it.
We need to refocus our services away from hospital settings to be rooted in the community, so that patients can access care when and where they need it, and we need to bolster a workforce that can better understand ME so that people can get timely care. Above all, we need to get that delivery plan published sooner rather than later. I implore the Minister for World ME Day: he has cross-party support, so let’s get it published ASAP.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) for bringing forward such an important debate ahead of World ME Day on 12 May. As Health Secretary, he laid the foundations for our cross-Government delivery plan, and from the Back Benches he has been a tireless champion for people living with ME. I join him in welcoming his cousin to the House today. I also pay tribute to the ME Association, Action for ME, Forward ME and many other outstanding charities that do incredible work in this area.
I thank the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the SNP spokeswoman—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for their thoughtful contributions. I particularly pay tribute to the SNP spokeswoman for the work she has done on the APPG, and to the shadow Minister for coming here today despite his own health challenges.
I will do my best to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time allowed. To start, I will address one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Barking. This is very much a cross-Government piece of work. I will be working very closely particularly with the Department for Education, and others, to ensure that we get this right. It is correct that this is a Health lead, but it is right that it is a cross-Government piece of work.
ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome, is a complex medical condition with a wide array of symptoms. Some people with ME struggle to do even the most basic things that we all take for granted, such as going to the office, seeing a GP, or even taking their children to football. This debate comes at a critical time, as new studies are beginning to pinpoint parts of the brain that affect the condition. A recent report has shown the yearly cost to the UK economy could be above £3 billion. While our understanding is improving, people with ME must receive the right care and support to manage their symptoms and, where possible, to be able to move on with their lives.
Sadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) has so eloquently set out today, there has been a real lack of awareness among some medical professionals and the wider public, as also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. For so long, people were dismissed, ignored or even told their symptoms were all in their head. However, as anyone who lives with ME knows, it is so much more than just feeling very tired; for a quarter of sufferers with severe symptoms, it is truly debilitating.
This is why our delivery plan is vital. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove knows, it has two core principles at its heart. First, we must know more about ME if we are able to improve outcomes. Secondly, we must trust and listen to people with ME to improve their experience. That is why the Government published the interim delivery plan last August, proposing a set of actions on research and education, but also tackling those old attitudes and adapting the language we use to describe the condition. Since then, we have consulted on the interim delivery plan to understand where the plan is strong and where we need to go further. I would like to thank the more than 3,000 people and organisations right across the United Kingdom who took part.
As we speak, officials are analysing thousands of responses and we will publish a summary shortly. These responses will be instrumental in developing the final cross-Government delivery plan, which will be published later this year. I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s frustrations, and he makes a powerful case for publishing the plan before the summer. While I cannot make that commitment at this time, I have assured him privately, and I will do so again today publicly, that I will do all in my power to ensure that the plan is published as soon as possible.
Our consultation had a huge response, which is fantastic, as we wanted the broadest range of voices to inform how we shape the plan, but the responses have also shown just how complex the challenges are. Once we have published our response to the consultation in the spring, it is vital that we go back and work very closely with patient groups to finesse the final plan, which could take some time.
As my right hon. Friend has said, people with ME have for too long been ignored and dismissed. That is why we want to take the time to properly understand the challenges they face and listen to the solutions they propose. It is so important that we get this right. I have heard my right hon. Friend, and I will continue to work hard with officials to come up with a plan that delivers for people with ME as soon as possible.
John McDonnell
It would be really helpful if the Minister could write to us about the areas that require the finessing for the eventual final plan.
Andrew Stephenson
I am happy to provide an update to Members. I hope that when we provide the summary of the 3,000-plus responses, it will shine a real clear light on that, but I am more than happy to write to everyone who has engaged in today’s debate to provide an update, and perhaps to address any points that I am not able to in the time allowed.
Patients can receive the care they deserve only with timely and accurate diagnosis. Sadly, there is no specific test for ME, which can be challenging to diagnose as it shares some symptoms with other conditions, as set out by the shadow Minister. That is why in 2021 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published the new guidelines on the management of ME that several Members mentioned. That was a step forward in helping medical professionals understand the condition so that people could be diagnosed as soon as possible. It also set out best practice for healthcare professionals in the management of ME, and the care and support they should offer patients.
Carol Monaghan
Given that we have heard that many health trusts are not implementing the new guidelines, can the Minister or his Department undertake to write to health boards to remind them that they are in place?
Andrew Stephenson
I completely understand the frustration that was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others about the lack of implementation. At the moment, we and NHS England are working hard to understand the barriers to the full implementation of the guidelines. They should have been fully implemented but we acknowledge that they have not. It is so important that we get this plan over the line because the final delivery plan will, without doubt, underline the need to follow NICE guidelines. That will be underpinned by e-learning from the Department on the development of new medical professionals and other initiatives that have been taken as part of the plan. I am keen for that to be looked at. I will now turn to medical training, but I will finally say that the NICE guidelines should be followed, and we are trying to understand why that has sadly not been the case in all too many trusts.
The new guidelines, while important by themselves, must come with a broader cultural shift across the NHS. That is why we have been working with NHS England to develop an e-learning course for health professionals, which they themselves have helped to develop, alongside charities and people living with ME. The Medical Schools Council will promote the course to every medical school in the country, while encouraging schools to take students to meet patients who suffer from ME face to face to help bust some of the myths around the condition.
I want to end by saying a few words about the future. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove on the importance of research. As he knows, the Government are funding research into ME through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. As he kindly mentioned, those institutions came together to fund DecodeME, the world’s largest genome-wide association study of the condition, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney. We are backing the study with over £3 million to analyse the samples from 25,000 people in the search for genetic differences that may indicate an underlying cause for the increased risk of developing the condition.
The study is already generating key insights. For example, while it has long been known that women are more susceptible to the condition, the DecodeME study has shown for the first time how their experience differs from that of men. I am happy to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North with the assurance that not only will we do everything to get the plan over the line as quickly as possible, but I will work with people such as the chief scientific adviser, Professor Lucy Chappell, to eradicate the gender bias in research.
Genomics is already revolutionising the way we diagnose and treat a range of conditions, solving riddles for diseases that were mysteries just 10 years ago. By improving understanding, investing in research and implementing our delivery plan, we will go further and faster in the years ahead. I know there is much to do. I will end by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for everything he has done on the matter. I will continue to work with him and other hon. and right hon. Members to ensure we get this right.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World ME Day.
Written Statements
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK-Israel Trade Negotiations
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The fifth round of negotiations on the UK-Israel free trade agreement ran from 8 to 17 April 2024.
This round of negotiations was hosted by the UK and conducted in a hybrid manner: a delegation of Israeli officials travelled to London for in-person discussions, with further officials attending virtually. During this round, officials held technical text-based discussions covering 27 policy areas across 63 sessions.
This round of negotiations discussed a range of policy areas, with a particular focus on services, which are not covered by our current agreement. Services comprise around 80% of both the UK and Israel’s economies but, because of our outdated trade agreement, services only make up just over one third of total trade between us. The trading relationship between the UK and Israel is valued at £6.4 billion as of September 2023, and there is significant room for growth. An upgraded trade deal will play to British strengths and unlock trade for our world-leading services and digital sectors.
The UK will maintain its long-standing foreign policy positions in this FTA, including with respect to the internationally recognised borders of Israel, and will continue to exclude illegal settlements to ensure nothing in this FTA undermines the viability of a two-state solution.
The Government remain clear that any deals we sign, including with Israel, will be in the best interests of the British people and the UK economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations the NHS, and the services it provides, is not on the table.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS436]
Gambling White Paper: One Year On
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
We are now one year on from the publication of the landmark gambling White Paper and the Government continue to take important steps in implementing their key policies and recommendations.
That White Paper recognised the significant contribution that racing makes to not just British sporting culture, but our wider economy. It is second only to football in attendance figures and constitutes a major part of various different rural economies across the country. According to a study, submitted by the British Horseracing Authority, the racing industry has direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion and makes a total annual contribution to the UK economy, including induced effects, of £4.1 billion.
As the regulator for the sector, the Gambling Commission has a pivotal role to play in the implementation of reforms. Today the Gambling Commission published its decisions on four key measures from the White Paper: stronger age verification in premises, improving customer choice on direct marketing, safer remote game design, and financial risk checks. I am pleased to say that its plans for these measures remain entirely consistent with the objectives of our White Paper.
In its consultation response, the Gambling Commission set out its plans to implement a proportionate new system of frictionless financial risk checks. This system contains two different financial risk checks. The first are frictionless, light-touch vulnerability checks that will use publicly available data and do not require any information from punters.
The second are enhanced frictionless risk assessments. As set out in the Gambling Commission’s recent blog post on this issue, the consultation response makes clear that these enhanced risk assessments will only be introduced after a pilot period and at the point when we are certain they will be frictionless, meaning customers will no longer have to provide documents. The pilot will be used to test the best data to use and how operators and credit reference agencies will share this data. Credit reference agencies collect a range of data that could be used in an assessment, such as information on missed or late credit payments or how much credit is available. Gambling operators will never have access to raw account-level data so, for example, they would not be able to look at customers’ bank accounts and nor will the Government or Gambling Commission. The pilot will also assess the impact these risk assessments will have on the industry as well as consumers.
While this pilot is under way, an interim code will deliver progress on resolving the issue of existing ad hoc and onerous document checks. The Betting and Gaming Council has announced today its new industry code on consumer checks. For operators who adopt this interim solution, these measures will bring much-needed consistency across the regulated sector until the frictionless financial risk assessments can be developed, tested and fully implemented.
The interim code and the new system of frictionless checks are a major step towards transforming the current system of ad hoc and onerous document checks that are negatively impacting customers, the betting industry and horseracing. Even when this new system of frictionless checks is in place, we recognise that these measures are likely to have an impact on betting yield. The Government are working with racing, and refining estimates of this impact, and, as committed to in the gambling White Paper, we started a review of the horserace betting levy in May 2023 to ensure a suitable return to the sport for the future. This review has been taking into account the impact of the wider reforms in the White Paper on horseracing to ensure the proposed levy delivers an appropriate level of funding for the sector. We recognise the importance of the levy to the horseracing industry, and we have strongly encouraged racing and betting stakeholders to work together to come to a consensus in the best interests of the sport. We recognise that a huge amount of hard work has been undertaken over the course of the last year, but we are disappointed that this has not resulted in an agreement to date. I and the Minister for Sport are undertaking an intense period of engagement with all parties to resolve this issue, and we continue to encourage all parties to engage and come to an agreement voluntarily. As we have always said, if no agreement is reached we will consider legislative options. We will update the House on the progress on these talks on or before 22 May 2024.
[HCWS438]
Faith School Designation Reforms
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Today, I wish to inform the House that we are consulting on faith designation reforms for new and existing free schools and special academies.
These reforms will build on our success in raising standards in our schools, with 90% of schools now rated “good” or “outstanding”, up from just 68% in 2010. A key driver of this progress has been our academies programme, which has put schools in the hands of education experts. Today, over half of state-funded schools are academies, totalling 10,839, compared with just 203 in 2010. High-quality multi-academy trusts are key to driving up education standards for pupils, teachers and leaders. The best trusts enable the most effective leaders to support a greater number of schools and deliver school improvement, by directing resources to where they are needed the most. This underpins our focus on continuing to improve standards in schools, providing the best education for children, including for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special educational needs and disabilities.
The Church of England, the Catholic Church and other faith school providers are long-standing and valued partners of my Department and are a key part of our diverse school system, representing a third of all schools in England. Faith schools are judged “good” or “outstanding” at a higher rate than the national average and are, as a consequence, very popular with parents. Helping more faith schools to join academy trusts and removing barriers to the creation of more faith school places is a critical next step in the Government’s plan to give every child a world-class education.
At the moment, the Government require admission authorities for a mainstream free school designated with a religious character to allocate at least 50% of its available places without reference to faith-based admission criteria, when oversubscribed. The original aim of that restriction was to promote a more inclusive intake in those schools. However, the evidence suggests that the 50% faith admissions cap has not achieved inclusivity. It has also worked against creating more good school places because some faith bodies, such as the Catholic Church and its dioceses, have felt unable to establish new free schools on this basis.
Our proposals will remove the cap and, by doing so, increase the number of good school places where there is demand from communities, ensuring parents have more choice over where they send their child to school. The application process for new free schools will continue to require applicants to consider how the school will promote cohesion, integration and tolerance in the school community. As already set in regulations, all schools—including free schools designated with a religious character— must promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.
We are also consulting on changing our policy to allow special academies to be designated with a religious character. This will encourage high-quality faith school providers with a track record of high performance to consider applying to establish new special academies and free schools within their multi-academy trusts. This builds on our delivery of over 60,000 new places for children or young people with SEND or who require alternative provision, with a £2.6 billion package to improve SEND services between 2022 and 2025. Faith schools have a long and positive history of providing education and support to these children. There are 241 faith schools in England providing specialist units, which provide high-quality education and support for pupils with SEND. In addition, a number of faith providers have experience of delivering dedicated special schools in the independent sector, and through the provision of non-maintained special schools with a faith ethos and special academies with a faith ethos.
I think it is important to capitalise on all of the expertise in the special needs sector in order to meet the challenge of ensuring access to the right provision for every child. I want to ensure that all faith groups feel able to open special academies and provide high-quality places for pupils with complex special educational needs and disabilities, who would be admitted on the basis of their need, not their faith.
These proposals apply to England only and the consultation will run for seven weeks, closing on 20 June 2024. The consultation and the Government response will be published on gov.uk. We will also place a copy of the Government response in the Library of both Houses.
A consultation will allow my Department to capture and consider a wide range of views about how our proposals to change policy are likely to impact schools, local authorities, parents, children and young people. We will consider all responses to the consultation and use them to inform our proposals for better meeting the policy objectives of faith schools.
[HCWS437]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Stunell
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on Monday 29 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
House of Lords: Reform
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proposals they are considering to reform the House of Lords, in particular with regard to the size of the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I start by sharing the sadness at the sudden death of Lord Stunell.
The House of Lords plays a crucial role by scrutinising, debating and holding the Government to account. However, reform, including in relation to the size and membership of this House, is not a priority in this Parliament.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will ask a very simple question. Due to the ageing nature of Labour’s membership of the House, we are now down to as few as 100 Labour Peers regularly attending proceedings. Meanwhile, the Government are openly challenging the excellent and well thought-through Fowler-McFall reforms with a stream of their own introductions, bringing the Conservative membership to nearly 300. If a Labour Government are elected, how can we possibly secure the public business against a background of such overwhelming odds? Is the Government’s strategy to fill the House to capacity and make it difficult for Labour to appoint without further breaching the reforms?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. On the numbers, we now have 787 Members. The Conservatives have 277 Members, 35% of the House. As the noble Lord points out, the Labour Members are fewer: 172 Members, 22%. But the appointments that have been made, which he referred to, have not changed the dial. It is still hard for the Government to get their business through the Lords, and the numbers fall a long way away from the make-up of the House of Commons, where 53% are still Conservatives. Our priority is to ensure that this House continues to play its important role in scrutinising and revising legislation, which is what the country wants the House of Lords to do.
Lord Beith (LD)
I thank the Minister for paying tribute to our dear colleague, Andrew Stunell, whom we have lost.
Given that the Government have no time left in this Parliament for fundamental reform—I agree on that—why have they continued to appoint Peers at a rate that clearly prejudices any claim the House has to be generally representative? There have been 74 new Peers. Is the Government’s intention to maintain a situation in which they can always dismiss the views represented by the House of Lords when it is arguing with the Commons, on the grounds that we are not sufficiently democratically representative?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I did not give the Liberal Democrat numbers, but there are 80 Liberal Democrat Members—10% of the House—which is a lot more than in the House of Commons. It is important that we continue to refresh the Benches in this House. There has been a good process of parties encouraging retirements at the right stage. Sadly, we lose people; we have just lost Lord Stunell, and we lost Lord Field last week. It is necessary to continue to make appointments, and it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to advise the sovereign as to who should join this House. There have been some recent appointments to the Labour Benches, which I very much welcomed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to that last question, is it not the case, as my noble friend pointed out, that the one party overrepresented in this House is the Liberals? Is it not also the case that the Government lost at least two votes this week because of people voting remotely?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is right that it has been an extraordinary week in that we have had such close votes. I agree with the general sentiment of what he is trying to say. What is really important about this House—people who admire this House say the same—is that we have a different, unique mix of expertise, age, where people come from and the jobs that they have done; some are part-time while others, such as the Front Benches, turn up regularly. That makes for better legislation and better policy-making.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I express from these Benches our sadness at the loss of Lord Stunell, a dedicated public servant; our thoughts are with his family and friends, and especially his friends and colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that when Labour left office in 2010, there were 24 more Labour Peers than Conservative Peers serving in your Lordships’ House, while today, after 14 years of Conservative government, there are over 100 more Peers on the Government Benches than on the Labour Benches? Does she think this disparity is in the interests of the House?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is important that the House is refreshed, and I have already explained that the current Prime Minister recently encouraged Labour to put forward candidates for peerages—I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, with whom I used to work when we were in retail together. The numbers change over time. There are large numbers on the Cross Benches as well as on the party Benches. We have to make sure that we scrutinise the legislation, do our job and refresh the House from time to time. I am grateful for the work that all the parties have done in encouraging retirement and supporting new people to join this House with new perspectives.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, in considering changes to the House of Lords, many advocate an elected Chamber. But I suggest that it is usually good practice, before determining the composition of any group, to first consider its function—function before form. I think many would agree that the function of this House, as articulated by the Minister, is as a scrutinising, revising Chamber to make legislation better. In considering that, does the Minister agree that an appointed Chamber, as now, is better placed to deliver that function than an elected Chamber?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree that an elected Chamber has problems, because there would inevitably be a clash with the Commons and indeed the devolved legislatures. An appointed Chamber allows the Commons to prevail constitutionally and serve constituents across the country. Reform is not ruled out in the longer term but we have been very clear, certainly ever since I joined the Front Bench, that we should not have piecemeal reform and that any reform should be very careful, considered and comprehensive.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of one of the greatest reforms of the House of Lords, which I am sure the vast majority of noble Lords agree with, brought in by a Conservative Government—the Life Peerages Act in the 1950s.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with my noble friend, who always has good historical angles, that the Act was a great move forward. Many of us who are lucky enough to serve in this House benefit from that excellent constitutional change.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, surely our objective is the reduction of the number in the House, which is continually criticised outside this place. Can we not revisit the excellent report submitted some years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who is in his place? Can we not persuade Governments at least to abide by that report or stop complaining about the size of the House?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee did, but a number of Administrations have not signed up to those recommendations and have not wanted to move in the direction of a cap. I think I understand why. You want to focus on the number of Peers who attend, not simply the overall figure. As I have tried to explain, we have a mixture of full-time Peers and some who contribute only occasionally but bring unique insights to what they do. It is a little unclear, when people are made Peers, whether they will not come very often—which is certainly what I intended when I became a Peer—or end up contributing in a very substantial way, particularly at different parts of their career.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister talked eloquently about the important role of this House, but why will the Government Front Bench not recognise that public opinion on the role of this House and the quality of its work is diminished badly by the criticisms of its size and the appointments process by which people get here? Will she not reconsider her view about piecemeal reform, which is the only way we ever get anywhere in this House, and look at having a statutory appointments commission with proper scrutiny powers over appointments?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There were a lot of points there. There are many ideas for reform, some of which have a lot of merit, but to take the final point about making HOLAC statutory, I do not favour that. It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister and the sovereign to appoint. We really value the work done by HOLAC and its new chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in ensuring the propriety of proposals that come forward, but we do not believe we should move the composition of the House away from nomination by a democratically elected person to a more corporate model. That would be a mistake. On the popularity of the House of Lords, when you talk to people about the work we do, they are much more understanding. We need to get about and explain the work we do in revising legislation and in helping the country to come to better conclusions on matters of policy.
Water Companies: Licence Conditions
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimates have been made of the distributable reserves of each water company now that OFWAT has taken powers under the Environment Act 2021 to change their licence conditions, including whether they can pay dividends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The best proxy for distributable reserves is retained profits. This is the profit and loss reserve on a company’s balance sheet. Company boards are responsible for determining how much of their profit and loss reserves is distributed. The Government have not carried out an exercise to calculate each company’s distributable reserves. Where a company in cash lock-up breaches its licence by paying a dividend, Ofwat will take enforcement action.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, as I have previously pointed out in this House, water company accounts are not only massaged but cooked and roasted with abusive accounting practices. Ofwat and the Government have said that under certain circumstances they will block the payment of dividends, which presupposes that they know what the legally defined distributable profits of each company are. The Minister has just said that the Government have not got a clue; therefore, there is no way of knowing whether any of those dividend payments is actually lawful. Can the Minister explain why the Government announce policies when they do not have the basic data to implement them?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The Government have a very clear idea about the information that they are reviewing because every single water company, like every other public company, has its accounts audited. That information is publicly available, and I refer the noble Lord to the public audited accounts of all those water companies.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support everything said by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I wonder what regular representation, if any, the Government make about the quality of the water provided to us via various water authorities. I do not know if the Minister is aware that there is an exponential rise of allergies and eczema in east London. The water quality there is poor; I have raised these issues privately and on previous occasions. Can he assure me and this House that the water quality is as important as the profits that the water companies are making?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I absolutely assure the noble Baroness and the House that that is the case. I was not aware of the issue that she outlined around the outbreak of eczema. I am not sure if that is related to the water, but I can certainly look into that matter for her. The Environment Agency spends a great deal of time on this, and it is one of the issues that we can be really proud of. We get an unbelievably good service provided in terms of clean water that goes into every household across this country for a very modest price.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Why do the Government allow these water companies to retain profits when there is so much need for investment and given their poor performance and the way that they are polluting our rivers and seas?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord perhaps needs to refresh his memory on exactly what a private company is and how that works. When you make an investment into a public company, like a water company, you expect to get some return on that investment, and it is only right and proper that everybody does. We are talking about pension funds as well as individuals.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the continuing secrecy and uncertainty surrounding the future of Thames Water is unhelpful and damaging to the water sector and the whole UK economy? When does the Minister expect to fully update the House and provide some certainty on Project Timber, the Government’s contingency plan for Thames Water?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Earl knows that it would be improper of me to comment on the details about Thames Water. I assure him and the House that we are taking an extremely close and careful look at this. It is in all our interests that the financial resilience of our water sector, as well as the individual players within it, is maintained and enhanced to ensure the level of investment required to improve water and address the issues related to sewage.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given the increasing regulatory and compliance burdens on water companies due to the Environment Act and such other essential recent legislation, is it not simply becoming unprofitable to invest in the water industry, which surely will make nationalisation at some point inevitable?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I do not think that I agree with that assessment at all; it certainly is not this Government’s policy to nationalise the water industry or indeed any other industry. Environmental issues around water companies are certainly highlighted more greatly than they ever were in the past. The Government have put a huge effort into monitoring the level of sewage and other pollutants going into the water systems. That, in part, is leading to much greater awareness of issues that have probably been going on for a very long time, and we are committed to fixing those issues.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to come back to the Minister’s response on dividends, investments and payments. Earlier this month, the Financial Times revealed that the 16 water companies paid out a total of £78 billion in dividends in the three decades since privatisation to March 2023, building up £64 billion in borrowing over the same period. It is worth remembering that the utilities were debt free when they were privatised. Frankly, I find these figures incredible. Is the Minister justifying his response to my noble friend as to how much money is acceptable to be paid in dividends?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a lot of very detailed numbers in her question, but the principle of dividends for public companies is well established and every other public company produces dividends for its investors. Perhaps I might take away those thoughts and come back to her.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, may I assist the Minister? It is one thing a company paying a dividend if it makes a reasonable profit, but does he not agree that it is completely different if a company is borrowing heavily to pay a dividend? I ask him also to comment on this, because he has not done so yet: we are all for the leaders of these industries being properly rewarded, but they should not be given bonuses when their environmental duties fall short.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend on that issue. Ofwat will also take forward a consultation to consider a ban on water bosses receiving bonuses when their company has committed a serious criminal breach. As part of that consultation, Ofwat will consider the criteria for a ban on bonuses. This would likely include successful prosecution for a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, given the uncertainty of Thames Water’s finances, what are the prospects of it being able to go ahead with its scheme for water transfer from the Severn to the Thames to meet the needs of south-east England? Does that not put the capital requirement for that scheme very much in doubt?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The capital requirement will be considered at the next spending review, which is due this year, so we will hear more about that in due course.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, once again, your Lordships’ House is indebted to the forensic skills of my noble friend Lord Sikka. He is the one person in this House who needs no instruction about where to look for what is going on in businesses and in companies, and how important accounts are. With some assistance from him, I had a look at Thames Water’s accounts. Its accounts, directors’ reports and cash-flow statements say that it paid dividends to its parent company as follows: £37 million in 2022, £45 million in 2023, and another £37.5 million in September 2023. However, its own PR spin says that these are not dividends and that this is the way it is paying interest on its debt. That is not what the accounts are for, and the accounts are not right if that is correct. In December, a spokesperson for Ofwat said:
“Following notification that Thames Water has paid a dividend to shareholders, Ofwat is investigating whether this payment meets its licence requirements”.
The Minister is a knowledgeable man in this area, as he tells us, so he should be able to explain what is to be investigated. More importantly, does he know why Ofwat has not reported since December?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I also pay tribute to the accountancy skills of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka; they are very thorough. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has himself made an extremely good attempt at interpreting the accounts on that front. The issues around Thames Water and the dividend that it paid last year are subject to an investigation at the moment. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them.
Higher Education: Arts and Humanities
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent announcements of proposed university staff cuts, what steps they are taking to support the study of the arts and humanities in higher education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the importance of the creative and performing arts to our economy. While some higher education providers have seen decreases in arts and humanities staff, academic staff numbers across England rose by 1.9% between 2019-20 and 2022-23 to 21,640.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, Gillian Keegan’s freezing of further funding for creative arts courses at universities, which has occurred since I tabled this Question, is surely pouring oil on already extremely troubled waters. We have a Government who seem wilfully blind to both the current threat to the arts at universities and the strategic importance of that pipeline. Will they reconsider that funding decision and take steps to protect the jobs and departments at Goldsmiths, Middlesex, Kent and elsewhere that are so necessary for the creative and economic future of this country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We absolutely agree with the noble Earl that high-quality provision across a range of subjects in the arts and humanities is critical both for our cultural enrichment as a society and for our workforce. That is why we require the Office for Students to at least maintain funding for those high-cost subjects at the current level of £16.7 million. As the noble Earl is also aware, we have dedicated funding for both our world-leading cultural institutions and other performing arts institutions.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the cap on student fees has meant that funding for students is at its lowest level in over 25 years. There is a £1 billion hole in domestic teaching funding, which will inevitably mean some very difficult decisions, as my noble friend indicated. Does the Minister agree that arts and humanities graduates have the creative and critical thinking essential for problem solving, which will be crucial to support businesses to get the most out of AI tools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, the Government strive to create a sustainable student finance system that both remains responsive to the needs of the wider economy and of the labour market, which she referred to, and is fair to students and taxpayers. As she remarked, those with creative and critical-thinking skills in relation to AI are of course important, but so are students with STEM skills.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, ahead of the local and mayoral elections tomorrow, would my noble friend the Minister say what the impact of slashing the graduate route will be on arts and humanities provision, as well as on the levelling- up agenda? I am thinking specifically about towns such as Middlesbrough and Darlington, where every intake of international students at Teesside University brings £240 million of benefits each year to the local economy.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is aware that we remain absolutely committed to our international education strategy, which has been extremely successful in terms of both the number of students who study in this country and their contribution to the economy. I cannot comment on the specifics of individual towns, but we absolutely recognise the value that those students bring.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly pointed out the importance of the arts to our cultural and creative industries, but they are also important to soft power. We are seeing 15 universities making job cuts in their arts and humanities departments and 35 others considering it. I do not need to go through the individual universities, but drama, film, music, dance and entire theatre departments are at risk. Two problems need to be addressed. The first is funding, if we want to keep these creative and humanities subjects at such a high level. The second is the pipeflow. We have talked about the EBacc before, but would the Minister now care to consider what damage it is doing and the danger it poses to the pipeflow to our university and FE sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I really do not follow the logic of how the EBacc is damaging the flow to our universities. Humanities and modern foreign languages are absolutely central and at the heart of the EBacc, but we are building on that with our higher technical qualifications and T-levels in areas such art and design, which will be introduced this year. I remind the House that bursaries and scholarships for, say, modern foreign language teachers are at the same level as for physics teachers.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be crazy to restrict entry from overseas students to particular universities or particular faculties or courses within those universities, not least because it would say that all the rest were perfectly okay for our daughters and sons but were not good enough for overseas students?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that that plan has currently been proposed. Where we have concerns about quality, they are about courses rather than subject areas at individual institutions, where the outcomes for those students, whether they are international or domestic, are significantly poorer than for the same course at another institution.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, almost every armed conflict in the world at present has a religious dimension, making informed and respectful dialogue increasingly critical for international peace and security. In that context, the steady decline in the numbers of those studying religion, theology and ethics in our higher education institutions is a cause for real concern. Given the dearth of graduates in these subjects at present, can the Minister tell us how the Government will nurture the necessary religious literacy of our public life in the coming years?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This is a very important subject and, I may say, goes wider in terms of critical thinking and understanding the information that we receive both in reality and online. I do not have the specific figures for religious studies on their own, but historical, philosophical and religious studies have declined over the last three years, as the right reverend Prelate said, but only by 5%. Multiple issues impact on that, but I think we also see young people seeking debate, and the moves that we have made as a Government on free speech within our universities are critical to underpinning that.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Government indicated that they would publish a cultural education plan by the end of last year, but they have given no commitment on a date for publishing. If they are keen, as we are, to put creativity at the heart of education, can they now give us a timeline for the publication of the plan?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am unable to give the noble Baroness a precise timeline, but the Government have already acted on cultural and creative education, for example through our investment in the institutes of technology: all 21 of these will be open by this autumn and seven are already working directly with creative, film and entertainment industries, addressing just the sort of cultural and creative jobs that I know the noble Baroness aspires to.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a graduate in classics, or literae humaniores as they were called at Oxford. Studying classics can open doors to a vast range of knowledge and experience, including language learning; grammar and vocabulary; literature and history; scientific, botanical and medical terminology; arts, architecture and sculpture, so much of which is based on classical themes and models, as is classical music; and logical thinking, which is so important to digital technologies and coding and to other fields of activity. So what steps are the Government taking to promote and enhance continued teaching of classical subjects at university?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the Government do not impose in any way on universities what subjects they should teach. The noble Lord has done a most marvellous marketing pitch for classics; I expect to see applications rise in response this autumn. But it is up to individual universities to decide. In schools, we have been encouraging the greater teaching of Latin, and certainly that is much appreciated by those students who benefit.
Ukraine: Small Boats
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moore of Etchingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many small boats impounded from illegal migrants they have in their possession, and whether they plan to grant requests from the Ukrainian authorities to contribute these to the Ukrainian war effort.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, no such request by the Ukrainian authorities has been received by the Home Office. These boats, which are not manufactured to commercial standards, are completely unsuitable for anything other than endangering those who use them. Border Force has seized and disposed of hundreds since 2018.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I think it is ridiculous to tell the Ukrainians what is safe for them to use in the situation they are in. They want these boats because they are the only way they can get across the Dnipro to their bridgeheads on the other side, and ferry men and munitions in and the wounded out. The Ukrainian authorities have asked for them; I am afraid it is a mistake to say that they have not. The Ukrainian embassy asked for them twice in February, and I have heard today that the Ukrainian ministry of defence is about to ask for them again now. I find it very puzzling. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there is such reluctance to help—particularly as, at last, the American aid has come through—Ukraine get on the front foot, doing something incredibly brave, with these tiny boats, to get across the Dnipro and progress. They know more about what craft are seaworthy; they will repair these craft, because they need to—because they use them in matters of life and death.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of questions there. First, just to repeat, the UK’s total committed military, humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine now amounts to almost £12.5 billion. As recently as 23 April, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will send our largest ever package of equipment from the UK, which is designed to help push back the Russian invasion on land, sea and air.
I go back to my initial Answer: these craft are unseaworthy. It is for us to determine their seaworthiness. They are built to extremely poor standards; they do not really even make it across the channel. They are not worth sending to Ukraine. As far as we are aware, the Ukrainian authorities have yet to ask for these boats. If they do, they should approach the Home Office and we will certainly come up with some other solutions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could help the Minister, because the Times last Monday had the answer to some of the questions about how many boats the Home Office has impounded. There are
“20 rigid inflatables … 62 folded-up inflatables and 131 engines”.
The fact that they have made it over the channel and been impounded suggests that they were seaworthy at a certain point. If the Ukrainians want them, why on earth does the Home Office not allow them to have them? Why do we need to keep them? Surely it is a win-win situation simply to hand them over to the Ukrainians to enable them to use them on the Dnipro.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Far from being rigid inflatables, these boats more resemble oversized rubber tires—inner tubes. The engines on these things tend to be very underpowered; they are less than 30 horsepower. They are bolted to a plywood transom and riveted to the back of the boat. They are unsafe.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, assuming that the seized boats are not going to Ukraine, could my noble friend tell the House how quickly they are destroyed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Some are kept for evidential and investigation reasons, but they are destroyed as quickly as possible. They are actually recycled; they are not put into landfill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, a year ago I asked this same Question and I got the same Answer from the Minister. Does saying that the boats are not safe indicate that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a role to play, in making sure that we can give boats to the poor people of Ukraine only if the MCA has approved it? It is nothing like crossing the channel to cross the river; it is a big river, but it is nothing like the channel. I know that the Swindon Humanitarian Aid Partnership is sending aid out all the time; it is taking buses and could take boats. It has said it can do it with no problem with security, but still the Minister rejects it. Could he think again?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No. I am rejecting it because these boats are unsafe. What I will do, however, is share a good news story from last week. The seventh convoy run by the National Fire Chiefs Council delivered to the border of Ukraine a large amount of the sort of aid that the noble Lord is describing, including 33 fire and rescue vehicles, two mechanics’ vehicles, an HGV carrying more than 2,800 items of surplus equipment, and 30 fire and rescue vehicles, including 20 fire engines, eight command units, an aerial ladder platform and a 4x4 LPP vehicle. That is practical help. I commend the 100 volunteers from all over the country who drove the fire services aid to the Ukrainian border. That is worth having. These boats are not.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, speaking as a simple sailor, none of those things float so they will not help the Ukrainians much on the Dnipro, will they? It seems extraordinary. Perhaps these things are unsafe, but can we not leave it to the Ukrainians to decide? If you are fighting for your survival, my goodness me, it is amazing what you can do. I would like to think that we could do the same if we were in that position, so why not let them do it? Is it because we are frightened of litigation against us? What is the reason, really?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord the admiral does not support the Government’s position on this. An unsafe boat is an unsafe boat. He knows more about them—and ships, of course—than I do. The fact is that the Ukrainians, as far as we are aware, have not even asked for these things, so that judgment does not need to be made.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
If these boats are unsafe, why can the Government not let them have other boats?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have just said and will continue to say: because the Ukrainians have not asked for them.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government’s efforts to support the people of Ukraine. Does my noble friend agree that we must do everything we can to try to protect the brave people of Ukraine when in many ways they are fighting on the front line for our own democracy? If there were a request from the Ukrainians for these boats, would his reply be different?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My reply would be that we should look into the appropriate sorts of boats that we should send as part of our aid. Again, to remind noble Lords about the type of aid, since the start of the conflict the UK has sent almost 400 different types of capabilities to Ukraine. If the Ukrainians asked for boats, we would certainly look at providing them, but not these.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I visited Western Jet Foil just over a year ago, and I agree with Minister. I saw oversized rubber tyres which looked extremely dangerous, so I support the Minister in what he just said. I want to ask the Minister about the seizure of Russian assets. We have had the same answer from the Government on this question for a long time now. Will the Minister outline what concrete steps the Government are taking to access those assets for the benefit of the Ukrainian people?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his support for the Government’s position regarding the boats. On the seizure of Russian assets, I am afraid I am not more aware of the discussions than he will be from having read in the papers about what is going on at a very high level among the international community. I am sure that as soon as there is more to say on the subject, we will be back at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
Having listened to the conversation, I think the enthusiasm in your Lordships’ House to support Ukraine in any way that we can is highly commendable. After two and a half years of conflict, there is a now a highly mature system of gifting in kind from the UK to Ukraine based not on—dare I say?—bright ideas of what we think we have that they want but on what they need and what they request. If we simply start gifting everything that we think they want, rather than what they actually ask for, we are in danger of overburdening them with all sorts of kit they know not what to do with.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. If there is a genuine request from the Ukrainian authorities to provide them with boats, we will absolutely look at it, and we will find the appropriate vehicles.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble friend clarify this? I understand that he is saying that there has been no request through the embassy here in the UK. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Moore, said that there was a formal request in February. Could my noble friend, for the benefit of all of us here who feel quite strongly about this, double-check whether there was or was not such a request?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I say to my noble friend what I said earlier: no request has come to the Home Office, and, as far as I am aware, the same goes for the FCDO and the MoD. As far as I am concerned, there has been no meaningful request to the authorities which could provide the boats that are under discussion.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about seizing Russian assets to use them to support the war effort by Ukraine. That idea came from the Foreign Secretary. He said it on a BBC programme and everyone else there said it was the most brilliant idea that had come from the United Kingdom, so I am surprised that there has been no further conversation. I happen to agree with the Foreign Secretary; he has his finger on the pulse. Is it not time that these assets were seized and used to help Ukraine to fight its war?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I think I made clear, I do not disagree or otherwise with the noble and right reverend Lord. He makes a perfectly reasonable point, but the Foreign Secretary is having those discussions and I am not.
Renters (Reform) Bill
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL]
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
UK Armed Forces in Middle East
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my entry in the register of interests, specifically my association with the Royal Navy.
Our service personnel are currently deployed in multiple theatres across the Middle East, reinforcing regional stability, protecting freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, fulfilling our ongoing commitments under Op Shader and of course assisting vital humanitarian efforts in Gaza. As ever, we are grateful for their service, their dedication and the sacrifices that they make daily to protect British national interests.
I ask the Minister to update your Lordships’ House on the new role of the RFA “Cardigan Bay” in helping to build the temporary pier on the Gaza Strip. How long is this deployment and what specific role will the UK play in the pier’s construction? As always, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on the front line supporting UK operations. My right honourable friend John Healey asked in the other place about the RFA, but the Minister there was seemingly unable to assist, so can the noble Earl confirm that the RFA is protected from his new Civil Service cuts? Can he provide an update on the current state of the industrial dispute with the RFA, given its important role?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, there were about six different questions there. First, I confirm that the UK Armed Forces operate under a number of international coalitions in the Middle East and have done so for some time. They include the Jordanian-led international effort for humanitarian aid into Gaza, the RAF drops, the support that we are giving in building the pier, the global coalition against Daesh, Operation Shader and Operation Prosperity Guardian. We do all that to protect life, uphold the rules-based international order and secure UK interests against malign forces in the region. “Cardigan Bay” is providing living support for the American soldiers and sailors who are building the bridge. It lies off Gaza now in international waters, and will be there for as long as it takes.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House, first, whether the Government would give a parliamentary vote if there were to be boots on the ground? Secondly, what conversations have His Majesty’s Government had with the Israeli Government about looking for appropriate ways of getting aid into Gaza and ensuring that those delivering that aid are protected, be they UNRWA or other charitable organisations?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I cannot remember the first question, but on the question of talking with the Israeli Government, we continue to press them on international aid to open up as many opportunities as we can to get a considerable amount of aid in. That includes via Ashdod, Erez and this new floating pontoon. It is extremely important to get as much aid in as we possibly can.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend update us on the situation regarding the malign influence of Iran, which has of course recently attacked Israel? It has certainly armed Hamas in the past, whatever its situation now, and is almost certainly controlling Hezbollah. Can he please update us on that?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the diplomatic situation with Iran is that we are using every possible effort to quieten down what could have become an extremely dangerous situation. So far, that diplomacy does seem to be working.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench recognise that neither of them referred, in their replies, to the role of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus? Does he not agree that the bases we have there have played an extremely positive role in recent times, and indeed in more previous times than that? Would he offer some thanks to those who are manning those bases?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I certainly will and would. We are part of international coalitions and there is a certain level of sensitivity around precisely which states are involved in what. But I can assure the House, in all respects, that the level of support from various areas could not be higher.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, away from the valuable operations of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in the region, it is easy to overlook the regular tempo of land exercises with our allies there, which not only build strategic capabilities over time but act as a deterrent to our foes in the region. Despite the large increase in pending announced last week, there remain in-year saving challenges. These exercises, being uncommitted spend, are the first things to be cut. I simply ask my noble friend to look carefully at ensuring that, away from operations, these exercises continue.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. The prioritisation of all the activities that we are engaged in through the UK Armed Forces is extremely important. To be ready to war-fight and win is absolutely paramount; to train to achieve that is critical.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the “Cardigan Bay” is of course one of our crucial Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. I refer to my noble friend’s question about the work that is going on about conditions of service. There is a very real risk of an impact on our Royal Fleet Auxiliaries because of this debate—and fight—going on about pay, conditions of service and the like. Can the Minister possibly tell us where we have got to in these negotiations? Is this going to impact not only there but on our amphibious group out in the Pacific and so on? These ships are so important.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree about the importance of these ships—what better example than “Cardigan Bay”, which is providing an absolutely vital role in supporting our allies to build this bridge? I will write to the noble Lord with specific detail; I think that is the best thing to do.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests in the Royal Navy. I encourage the Minister to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of HMS “Diamond”, particularly its recent contribution to continued freedom of the high seas in the Red Sea.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I could not pay greater tribute to our forces out there, whether on “Diamond”, “Lancaster” or “Cardigan Bay”. They are all providing absolutely critical support to an extremely important initiative.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we should applaud the role of the RAF, with the recent contribution it made in the interception of Iranian drones launched against Israel. I ask my noble friend the Minister: was that under Operation Shader? If so, is the role of Shader now being expanded?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It was indeed under Operation Shader, which has been in place since 2014. In fact, I answered a question about this the other day. The RAF has flown nearly 9,000 missions under Operation Shader and released more than 4,000 precision weapons, which gives noble Lords an idea of the scale and importance of ensuring that Daesh in Iraq and Syria is ultimately destroyed. There is no intention to increase the scope of that operation, but back in April it was the appropriate asset to use for that particular sortie.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to take up the point in the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite and hopefully have further information. I had concerns about some of the news that came out at the weekend that, in the project taking place in Gaza, we could end up looking at deploying British troops to be involved in the delivery of lorries on to the land. I would have great concerns about British troops being put into that position. We would not want to look as though we are condoning any of the Hamas actions that took place on 7 October; humanitarian aid is another issue. Could my noble friend give us reassurance that British troops will not be deployed inappropriately in this matter?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance that that report was pure speculation. That is exactly where the situation remains.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Wednesday 1st May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 50-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Apr 2024)
Lord Khan of Burnley
“Requirement to establish and operate a management company under leaseholder control(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—(a) requiring any long lease of a dwelling to include a residents management company (“RMC”) as a party to that lease, and(b) for that company to discharge under the long lease such management functions as may be prescribed by the regulations.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide—(a) for the RMC to be a company limited by share (with each share to have a value not to exceed £1), and(b) for such shares to be allocated (for no consideration) to the leaseholder of the dwelling for the time being.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must prescribe the content and form of the articles of association of an RMC.(4) The content and form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3) have effect in relation to an RMC whether or not such articles are adopted by the company.(5) A provision of the articles of an RMC has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the content or form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3).(6) Section 20 of the Companies Act 2006 (default application of model articles) does not apply to an RMC.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit for the enforcement of regulations made under subsection (1), and such provision may (among other things) include provision—(a) conferring power on the First-Tier Tribunal to order that leases be varied to give effect to this section;(b) providing for terms to be implied into leases without the need for any order of any court or tribunal.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe descriptions of buildings in respect of which regulations may be made under subsection (1).(9) In this section—“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;“management function” has the meaning given by section 96(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of “management function” for the purposes of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that leases on new flats include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 92 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This new clause would ensure that leases on new flats included a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share. The amendment has dual purposes. It would remedy two significant current flaws in the leasehold system that the Bill does not address, and it would provide a step forward to commonhold, without doing so in a piecemeal way.
I turn to the current flaws. First, unless leaseholders in blocks of flats acquire the right to manage, collectively enfranchise and then establish a residents’ management company, or buy a property in a development where a residents’ management company has already been set up, they have no control whatever over how their money is spent. This is despite having to pay all the costs to maintain and manage their buildings. Secondly, the rights that leaseholders do have to exercise control over how their buildings are managed—whether through a tribunal, the appointment of a manager or the right to manage—are locked behind difficult and often costly legal processes to which many will not have access.
Our amendment would address both these problems by requiring that when a new residential block of flats was constructed and its units sold the development should be a three-way lease between the freeholder, the leaseholder and the new residents’ management company. Each leaseholder in the block would then own a share of the residents’ management company, and it would be under their exclusive control, giving them full responsibility for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and the cost of managing their building. This would give them control over how their money was spent. This ability to influence the management of their building would come at no additional cost.
The Minister will no doubt say that our amendment leaves no space either for limited cases in which a mandatory residents’ management company is not appropriate or where leaseholders simply do not want this responsibility. The Government have said many times that they are keen to give more home owners control over the management of their buildings, and we welcome that the Bill is moving in the right direction. Would it not make sense to have leaseholder management of their buildings to be the default?
Where mandatory residents’ management companies are not appropriate, could the Government not put forward such cases to be incorporated as exceptions? In the case of leaseholders not wanting to be compelled to manage their buildings, could there not be a provision for leaseholders to use the power of the management company to appoint a manager or simply return management to the freeholder? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these alternative options.
The real importance of this clause, however, comes from it being a key way of laying the groundwork for a future where commonhold is the default and leasehold becomes obsolete. It would help to create a cohort of leaseholders who have experience in running their buildings, as they would under a commonhold arrangement, even if that experience is limited both in time and the extent to which they have carried it out.
This is certainly not a perfect solution. It would do little for leaseholders who have already purchased their flats and do not currently have a residents’ management company. We need other solutions, building on measures already in the Bill to address the challenges they will continue to face. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move Amendment 92.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. The right to manage was first introduced in the leasehold reform Act of 2002. From the start, it was, as the noble Lord said, intended as a simple and cost-effective alternative to collective enfranchisement, but, despite the happy intentions of that Act, the reality was quite different. Take-up has not been what we would all have hoped for or expected, because the right to manage has proved incredibly problematic in practice.
These problems culminated in the Law Commission’s final report in 2020—time has marched on—on exercising the right to manage. It summarises the difficulties as follows:
“The ‘simple’ RTM process envisaged in the original consultation which led to the 2002 Act has not come to pass. The requirement for strict compliance with the statutory procedures, such as the service of certain notices on particular parties, can be unforgiving to leaseholders. In many cases, small mistakes made by the RTM company have afforded landlords opportunities to frustrate or delay otherwise valid claims. The Court of Appeal has noted that while the procedures ‘should be as simple as possible to reduce the potential for challenges by an obstructive landlord’, in fact they ‘contain traps for the unwary’”.
This is not a good advert for anyone seeking to exercise the right to manage, which we believe is fundamental to the change we need. The Law Commission subsequently made 101 recommendations, of which the then Government adopted two.
Whole swathes of actions could be happening to make this process simpler and to encourage residents to take this up. We have no doubt that the process is not an easy one and that the provisions in the Bill as it stands are actually quite limited. The uplift from 25% to 50% is welcome, as are the beneficial changes in cost provision, and minor changes to courts and tribunals. They are all positive but underwhelming—a far cry from the 101 recommendations.
In debates throughout the course of the Bill we have heard numerous instances of excessive charges and unfair practices, from both Houses. The Law Commission summed it up best when it said that
“the landlord and leaseholder have opposing financial interests—generally speaking, any financial gain for the landlord will be at the expense of the leaseholder, and vice versa …Their interests are diametrically opposed, and consensus will be impossible to achieve”.
This amendment is quite realistic: it is starting only with new build, but what it does is symbolic, in that it draws a line under the past and clearly points the way forward. Noble Lords will notice that I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles, and we are not saying that the residents’ right to manage will be any easier—but it will be fairer. Those paying the bills control the bills and can remove any poorly performing providers. We believe that a leaseholder-controlled resident management company with an elected board, accountable to all leaseholders, is a far more democratic arrangement than one middleman freeholder controlling block management, spending leaseholders’ money freely and not involving them in the decision-making processes. It is fundamentally a better way to go, and there seems to be widespread support for it.
We support this amendment because we believe that it is a step in the right direction and could reinvigorate right to manage with the right support. It seems that the Government are finding reasons not to do something instead of working to enable something better to happen.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for speaking to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and I am grateful for both contributions in this brief discussion.
The amendment seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all leasehold flats. I understand the intention to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. The Government support the desire to give more home owners control over the management of their buildings. This Bill is intended to do just that, and will make it cheaper and easier for more leaseholders to own and manage their homes should they wish to.
In some cases, developers have voluntarily set up residents’ management companies to transfer management responsibility to leaseholders. We welcome this, and encourage the industry to adopt this model where appropriate. However, we believe that the best way in which to achieve resident-led management for new buildings is not for government to mandate change to leasehold but to reinvigorate and improve the uptake of commonhold. Commonhold does not require involvement from a third party.
We will reinvigorate commonhold so that it is a genuine alternative to leasehold for new flats. However, there are limitations in the current legal design of commonhold which can limit its use in some settings. We must get any changes right, and preparing the market for the widespread uptake of commonhold will take time. Existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. This is an established, no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of leaseholders wish to do so.
There are some situations where the right to manage is not available because leaseholder-led management is not considered appropriate—for example, in largely commercial buildings or where there are social tenants. We believe that it would not be appropriate to apply a blanket provision requiring residents’ management companies for all new buildings without considering where equivalent protections should apply.
Further practical challenges include determining at what point during development and the sale of units management responsibility would be transferred; what position the freeholder would have in the management company if they retained non-residential units or those on short leases; and what protections would be required should leaseholders not wish to take up management responsibilities. Answering these questions would require significant additional consideration—consideration that is ultimately unnecessary because a reinvigorated commonhold is the answer for new buildings, and the right to manage for existing leaseholders makes sure that home owners can already control the management of their building.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it does not satisfy exactly the issues that we have raised. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for saying that this
“draws a line under the past”
and is a
“step in the right direction”.
It is a fairer process when those who are paying the bills have control of the bills.
We would not need this amendment if the Government had followed the Law Commission recommendations to move to a commonhold system now. This is a missed opportunity. That is why we have argued that this is a limited Bill. I wish that the noble and Lancastrian Lord had gone for the Lancastrian approach and been absolutely candid and answered the questions. In the meantime, I accept his reasoning and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
“SCHEDULEBUILDING SAFETY REMEDIATION SCHEMEDuty to establish the scheme
1 (1) The Secretary of State must establish, or make arrangements for the establishment of, a Building Safety Remediation Scheme (“the BSRS”).(2) The purpose of the BSRS must be to ensure that residential blocks of flats with building safety risks are made safe, mortgageable and insurable at no cost to leaseholders or landlords. (3) For the purposes of this Schedule “building safety remediation principle” is the principle that—(a) so far as reasonably practicable, remediation costs for relevant buildings with building safety risks arising from defective construction or additional building work should be met by the developer, the principal contractor or both, and(b) where that is not reasonably practicable, or where building safety risks do not arise from defective construction or additional building work, costs should be met by the building industry.Scope of the scheme
2 The BSRS must be framed so as to apply to relevant buildings which—(a) were constructed, or subject to additional building work, on or after 1 June 1992, and(b) present building safety risks.Operation of the scheme
3 (1) The BSRS must provide for persons (including freeholders and leaseholders) to apply—(a) for a building to be recognised as a relevant building, and(b) for a relevant building to be recognised as eligible for grants in respect of the cost of remediation works.(2) The BSRS must provide—(a) for the appointment of persons (“BSRS adjudicators”) with appropriate expertise to determine, on behalf of the Secretary of State, applications under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b), and(b) for BSRS adjudicators to be required to exercise operational independence in making determinations under the scheme.(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the BSRS may provide for appointments to be made by the Secretary of State or by one or more persons designated for that purpose by the Secretary of State under the scheme.(4) The BSRS must provide that determinations of BSRS adjudicators in respect of building eligibility for the scheme under paragraph 4 are final (but nothing in this sub-paragraph prevents the exercise by the High Court of its judicial review jurisdiction).Scheme supplementary regulations
4 (1) The Secretary of State must make regulations (“scheme supplementary regulations”) in respect of the BSRS.(2) Scheme supplementary regulations, in particular—(a) may make provision for determining what is to be, or not to be, treated as a relevant building for the purposes of the scheme;(b) may make provision for determining the date on which buildings were constructed or subject to additional building work;(c) may make provision for determining who is entitled to make an application under the scheme in respect of a relevant building;(d) may specify criteria to be applied by BSRS adjudicators in determining whether a relevant building presents building safety risks as a result of defective construction (and the criteria may, in particular, make provision wholly or partly by reference to building regulations or other enactments in force at the time of construction or by reference to specified classes of document);(e) may make provision permitting or requiring BSRS adjudicators to conduct tests, and requiring owners and occupiers of relevant buildings to cooperate with BSRS adjudicators in conducting tests; (f) may make provision permitting BSRS adjudicators to require local authorities or other specified classes of person to provide information or documents, and requiring persons to comply with any requirements imposed;(g) may make provision about the timing of applications and determinations;(h) may make provision about evidence to be adduced in support of an application;(i) may require or permit BSRS adjudicators to operate a rebuttable presumption of defective construction where specified classes of fact have been proved (for which purpose the regulations may make provision similar to, or applying with or without modification, any enactment);(j) may make provision about the making, processing and determination of applications under the scheme;(k) may make provision about the giving of notice to developers and others;(l) may make provision about the payment of awards;(m) may make provision about monitoring expenditure on remediation works;(n) may set a threshold for the estimated or quoted cost of remediation works below which an application for recognition cannot be made;(o) may make provision for determining, having regard in particular to the need for proportionality, the nature and extent of remediation costs which may be funded by the scheme (for which purpose “remediation costs” means any class of expenditure related to building safety risks, including, in particular, repair costs, the costs of interim mitigation or safety measures and reimbursement of or compensation for increases in insurance premiums);(p) may make provision for account to be taken of grants provided in respect of remediation works by any other scheme established by enactment or by a public authority;(q) may make provision for financial assistance provided by any other scheme established by enactment or by a public authority to be repaid out of grants under the remediation scheme;(r) may permit or require the amalgamation of multiple applications in respect of one relevant building, or of applications on behalf of the residents of one or more relevant buildings;(s) may permit or require representative applications on behalf of the residents of one or more relevant buildings;(t) may make provision about the qualifications, appointment, remuneration and conduct of BSRS adjudicators, and the regulations may, in particular—(i) provide for adjudicators to be remunerated from BSRS funds;(ii) provide for indemnities in respect of decisions taken by adjudicators (for which purpose the regulations may apply an enactment (with or without modification));(u) must include provision requiring the maintenance and publication of records of applications and determinations under the BSRS;(v) must confer a right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal in respect of determinations as to whether a building safety risk arose from defective construction or additional building work.Scheme funding regulations
5 (1) The Secretary of State must make regulations about the funding of the BSRS and of grants made under it (“scheme funding regulations”).and of grants made under it (“scheme funding regulations”). (2) Scheme funding regulations must aim to apply the building safety remediation principle so far as practicable.(3) For that purpose, scheme funding regulations must aim to ensure that a grant awarded under the BSRS is funded—(a) so far as possible where building safety risks arise from defective construction or additional building work, by the developer or principal contractor of the building in respect of which the grant is awarded, and(b) failing that (whether by reason of the dissolution of a developer or principal contractor, insolvency or otherwise), or where building safety risks do not arise from defective construction or additional building work, by money paid into a fund maintained through a levy on the building industry in general, or specified parts of the building industry.(4) For the purposes of achieving the objective in sub-paragraph (3)(a)—(a) the reference to the developer of a building includes a reference to any person who arranged for its construction or additional building work and for the sale of units in the building;(b) the reference to the principal contractor is a reference to the person who was responsible to the developer for the construction of a building or undertaking additional building work;(c) scheme funding regulations must permit a BSRS adjudicator to provide for an award under the scheme to be paid by one or more persons specified by the adjudicator (and awards may, in particular, provide for joint and several liability);(d) scheme funding regulations must confer a right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal;(e) scheme funding regulations may include provision permitting a BSRS adjudicator to permit or require an award for payment by a specified person to be satisfied wholly or partly by a person connected to that person (within the meaning of the regulations, for which purpose the regulations may apply, with or without modification, section 121 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and any enactment relating to joint ventures);(f) scheme funding regulations may include provision about enforcement of liability to satisfy awards, which may, in particular—(i) provide for collection of awards as a statutory debt,(ii) include provision for interest or penalties,(iii) provide for liability to make payments pending appeal or review, and(iv) create criminal offences in connection with evasion.(5) For the purposes of achieving the objective in sub-paragraph (3)(b), scheme funding regulations—(a) must establish one or more levies to be paid by specified businesses or classes of business;(b) must make provision for determining liability to pay the levy;(c) may confer functions on BSRS adjudicators or other specified persons (which may include the Secretary of State) in respect of determination of liability to pay the levy;(d) must confer on a person determined to be liable to pay the levy the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal;(e) may provide for different amounts of levy to be paid by different classes of person;(f) may provide for the levy to be paid by way of one-off payments, periodic payments or both; (g) may include provision about enforcement of liability to pay the levy (which may, in particular, provide for collection of the levy as a statutory debt, include provision for interest or penalties and create criminal offences in connection with evasion);(h) must include provision about the administration of the levy by the Secretary of State, including provision as to the maintenance and publication of estimates, accounts and other records;(i) may include supplemental provision about the levy.(6) In making regulations under sub-paragraph (5), and in particular in assessing the proportionality and other fairness of any levy imposed by regulations under sub-paragraph (5), the Secretary of State must—(a) have regard to any other levy or similar imposition that appears to have a similar purpose as a levy under the scheme funding regulations, and(b) must consult persons appearing to him or her to represent the interests of persons affected by other relevant levies and impositions.(7) Scheme funding regulations may include provision about—(a) application of awards, levies and grants, including provision for holding (or return) of surplus funds;(b) the nature and extent of obligations imposed by awards (which may, in particular, provide for payments in money or services or money’s worth);(c) processes and procedures to be applied in determining applications for grants and questions of liability to awards (which may, in particular, include provision for determination wholly, partly, absolutely or contingently by arbitration, mediation or any other kind of process or procedure the Secretary of State thinks appropriate);(d) terms and conditions of awards, levies and grants;(e) appraisals, appeals and enforcement.Apportionment
6 (1) Scheme funding regulations may make provision about apportionment of liability for defective construction.(2) In particular, scheme funding regulations may provide that where a person is required to pay an award under the BSRS, that person may bring proceedings to recover a contribution from one or more persons who share responsibility for the defects in respect of which the award is made.(3) Provision made by virtue of this paragraph may—(a) confer jurisdiction on the First-tier Tribunal or on any other specified court or tribunal;(b) apply (with or without modifications) any enactment about third- party liability.Interim payments
7 (1) The Secretary of State may make interim grants to persons whom the Secretary of State believes are likely to be entitled to benefit from the remediation scheme.(2) Interim grants may be made on such terms and conditions (including as to repayment) as the Secretary of State may specify.(3) Scheme supplementary regulations—(a) may include provision for account to be taken of interim grants under this paragraph, and(b) may include other provision about interim grants under this paragraph (including provision about applications for grants, eligibility for grants and determination of applications for grants). Interpretation
8 For the purposes of this Schedule— “building safety risk” has the meaning given in section 120(5) of the Building Safety Act 2022;“building industry” has the meaning given in section 127(7) of the Building Safety Act 2022;“construction” includes any kind of building work (whether part of the original construction of a building or not) including works of improvement, repair and extension;“class” includes description;“defective construction or other building work” means construction or additional building work that—(a) contravened building regulations or other enactments in force at the time of the construction or additional building work, or(b) satisfies any other criteria specified in the BSRS or in scheme supplementary regulations;“BSRS funding regulations” has the meaning given by paragraph 5;“BSRS scheme” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“BSRS adjudicator” has the meaning given by paragraph 3;“grant” includes loans and any other form of financial assistance (for which purpose a reference to payment includes a reference to the provision of assistance);“building safety remediation principle” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“landlord” means means the landlord under the lease or any superior landlord.“remediation costs” has the meaning given by paragraph 4;“relevant building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building that contains at least two dwellings;“scheme supplementary regulations” has the meaning given by paragraph 4.Consultation
9 Before making the scheme, the scheme supplementary regulations and the scheme funding regulations, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) persons appearing to represent the interests of freeholders, leaseholders or occupiers of blocks of flats with building safety risks;(b) persons appearing to represent the interests of the construction industry and related industries, and(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.Regulations
10 (1) Scheme supplementary regulations and scheme funding regulations—(a) may make provision that applies generally or only for specified purposes,(b) may make different provision for different purposes,(c) may confer functions (including discretionary functions) on specified persons or classes of person, and may provide for the Secretary of State to appoint persons to exercise functions under the regulations or the remediation scheme (whether or not on behalf of the Secretary of State), and(d) may include supplemental, consequential or transitional provision.(2) Scheme funding regulations may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) Scheme supplementary regulations are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.” Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule would implement a building safety remediation scheme to ensure that buildings with building safety risks are put right without costs to leaseholders.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 93B I will also speak to linked Amendment 107 and Amendments 105C to 105G standing in my name. These amendments offer a range of proposals to enhance the protection of leaseholders from the costs of remedying fire protection or other structural defects.
I make no apology for returning, once again, to this matter of basic consumer protection for leaseholders and for going over some old ground. My mailbox tells me that the issues are far from resolved. Too many leaseholders remain seriously encumbered by the defects in the original construction of flats that they occupy or own. The plain truth is that the Building Safety Act—I shall refer to it as the BSA—is not delivering the protection that leaseholders ought to expect as a basic right, and this Bill serves to undermine it further in certain material respects.
There is cross-party consensus that the BSA needs amendment. I pay tribute to colleagues who, with me, continue to press the Government to make changes. I support the other amendments in this group for reasons that will become apparent. The BSA is convoluted. It complicates, excludes, creates uncertainty and risk, and delays remediation. It leaves some leaseholders—and their lenders—with permanently impaired assets. Where before there was one market, the BSA creates three tiers of flat ownership, with such complex rules that conveyancers frequently decline instructions and, increasingly, insurers are unwilling to offer professional indemnity cover to practitioners.
The Government have placed substantial remediation obligations on landlords. The courts should be the last resort, yet the BSA and the Bill force landlords to take legal action as a first resort on initial unfunded remediation and, thereafter, to recover the costs of defects that they did not cause from the developers. Where the developer no longer exists, they must fund it themselves. There is no automatic developer liability to meet any of the costs in the 85% of buildings not covered by the developer contract. There is no legal obligation on any contracting developer to cover non-life-critical fire defects and structural defects. Landlords are the backstop if public funding for cladding costs happens to prove insufficient. Construction inflation, moreover, has risen by a quarter since the announcement of the building safety fund in March 2020, so my first question is: what assurance exists that all eligible claims on the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme will be met even if they exceed those historic cost budgets?
More broadly, this model seems to be based on little more than political bias and destined to fail, and fail in a way that will ultimately harm leaseholders and the leasehold market. I have questioned previously whether the major landlord groups can afford to fulfil their remediation obligations as demanded. I was therefore surprised to learn that under the Bill, and despite relying on landlords to fund non-cladding remediation works or related legal action, the Government proposed to eliminate or reduce the ground rent income. I was further surprised to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, in a letter last week, that the Government have no estimates of the risk of freeholder insolvency.
The main asset of many landlord groups is ground rent income, as we have heard before in discussions on the Bill. It is used to repay the long-term bonds or loans over many decades. If the income is removed, some will likely declare insolvency: the Government acknowledge this risk in their own impact assessment. I mention this again because it is critical to the remediation obligation. So that leaseholders are not left completely exposed if their landlords are insolvent, I trust that the Minister will regard as an essential lifeline my amendments, which are the only ones providing for alternative remediation funding sources. I would like to know what contingency plans the Government have in place apart from this, should buildings with remediation obligations escheat to the Crown, an eventuality the Minister alluded to on Monday.
Valuers are already marking down portfolio valuations because of material uncertainty. Permanent impairment of leaseholder and lender assets is also risked under the Government’s model. Basel III pillar 1 standards come into force next year. Lenders will have to revalue a loan if an
“event occurs resulting in a permanent reduction of the property value”.
Leaseholders will also be hit by these provisions; specifically the unprotected and partially protected—that is, the capped liability leaseholders—and those leaseholds covered by the developer contract. The contract allows combustible materials, now banned, to remain on buildings so long as they do not cause that “life-critical fire safety risk”. I put that in quotes: it is a non-statutory definition and my Question for Written Answer on this still awaits a response. But leaving these in place gives rise to a B1 category of building risk rather than the fully remediated A1 classification. At the same time, these flaws are evident to the market, which values an asset not according to life safety but according to the risk of material loss. The result is permanently higher insurance premiums. Ministers may wag the finger at the FCA in relation to its insurer members but, in truth, the market has spoken on the BSA and on building and professional indemnity cover risks, and no amount of political manipulation is going to alter that.
There is one group that faces a very bleak outcome, unless the Government change course, and that is in enfranchised leaseholders. Theirs are, in the terms of the BSA, “not relevant buildings”, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, makes in his amendments. The limit of any new protection afforded to resident management companies is the cost of obtaining a remediation contribution order, so can the Minister explain how enfranchised leaseholders will deal with non-cladding defects or effectively force the original developer to make a contribution, especially if it happens not to exist any longer?
Better policy is clearly needed. Simply, the BSA should be amended to protect all leaseholders, regardless of circumstances, in buildings of all heights. A separate, dedicated funding stream is needed so that leaseholders are not left in limbo, particularly when their landlord becomes insolvent.
The Committee will be familiar with Amendments 93B and 107 from the debates on the levelling-up Bill and the then Building Safety Bill, so I will try not to labour the point too much. Amendment 107 requires the Government to establish a building safety remediation scheme and Amendment 93B proposes a new schedule setting out the scheme’s key features. The scheme would serve to protect all leaseholders, without exclusion, from building safety remediation and interim safety costs. As drafted, it is fully funded.
Joint and several liability for remediating building safety defects is placed on the developer and principal contractor where a building did not comply with regulations at the time of construction. If neither can pay, or if the regulations have moved on and a building is retrospectively deemed unsafe, remediation funding comes from a levy across the wider building and materials industry. That approach has been extensively scrutinised by a range of legal and other professionals. In particular, I thank David Sawtell KC, of 39 Essex Chambers, for making himself available when I recently met with the Minister, whom I thank for facilitating the meeting.
I have added a second option for good measure. Amendments 105C to 105G amend certain arrangements already in the BSA. The developer contract limits developer responsibility to undefined “life-critical fire safety defects”. That means that all other defects are excluded. Amendment 105C closes that loophole by requiring developers to remedy all defects defined in the BSA. That brings all fire and structural defects within the scope of the developer contract—and, therefore, the responsible actors scheme—and puts that in line with primary legislation. It ends the arrangement whereby Parliament set in legislation one definition of defects requiring remediation while the Secretary of State entered into some side agreement with the industry for something rather different. At present, the government scheme requires developers only to remediate their own buildings. The Secretary of State has not given effect to Section 126(4)(b) of the BSA on the costs of remediating other buildings. Amendment 105D would put that right by amending the responsible actors scheme regulations.
Amendments 105E and 105F set out to end the three- tier system of leaseholder exclusions from remediation cost protection. Amendment 105E removes the exclusions according to building height and type of lease set out in the BSA. Amendment 105F removes the conditions and exclusions around remediation cost protection in Schedule 8 to the BSA.
The risk of major landlord insolvency is real. Amendment 105G reinstates and expands the original BSA provisions on insolvent landlords. It obliges insolvency practitioners and Law of Property Act receivers to commence or continue remediation work. Remediation costs are to be considered part of their expenses and therefore paid ahead of other creditors. It also reinstates their power to apply for a remediation contribution order, which the Government seek to remove through the Bill. But—this is a very big “but”—insolvency practitioners need secure funding if that is to work.
In closing, I draw attention to the great gulf between the Government’s self-praise about what they are doing—although, to a great degree, there is a lot of good in the Bill—and the reality. That reality is measured in the anguish and distress of hundreds of thousands of leaseholders who bought properties in good faith and now cannot sell them, get mortgages or move on with their lives. It is measured in the 15,000 people evacuated from their homes, as reported three days ago in the Sunday Times and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on Monday. It is measured in the 37% defect rate found in developer-contract buildings; in the glacial progress of remediation revealed in the Government’s most recent progress statistics; and in the FCA’s frank warning that insurers price risk not according to the loss of life, as the Government may wish, but according to the stronger test of total loss of asset. It is measured by the fact that this debate continues to play out seven years after the Grenfell fire.
This inequitable scattering of liability across innocent parties begs the question: why do the Government not make the wider construction industry, which designed, built, sold and banked the profits from these defective properties, the primary backstop for the damage done? We do not have an answer to that.
I have provided in these amendments two possible routes to effective protection of leaseholders, the most vulnerable group in this sorry tale of shame. I ask the Minister and noble Lords: if not by these proposals, how? When will the Government act to protect all innocent, home-owning consumers from market failure, and are they content to risk their reputation and legacy on simply making this a problem for the next Government? I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has been at the forefront of the campaign to extend protection to leaseholders since the Building Safety Act was passed. I say at the beginning that I will miss the contributions to our debates from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who was a regular contributor to housing debates and spoke with great authority.
This group of amendments is for many leaseholders the most important, and it differs from the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill gives rights to leaseholders that they did not have when they bought their lease. This group restores rights that leaseholders thought they had when they bought the lease but have now discovered that they did not. That right was to live in a building that complied with the safety regulations at the time. These leaseholders took all the necessary precautions, employing professional people before buying, but now find that they are faced with unaffordable bills, unsaleable properties and, quite often, repossession. As the noble Earl referred to, the Sunday Times revealed that more than 15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects. These decants are on the rise, with residents decanted from 21 buildings last year. Until these injustices are addressed, the Bill, with its new rights, is meaningless to those leaseholders.
I welcome the steps the Government have taken through the Building Safety Act, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for patiently listening to me during our many meetings. But despite the steps forward in recent years, there is still a gap between what the Government promised at the outset and where we are now. I will not repeat the quotes I gave at Second Reading but here is one I did not use, from Michael Gove:
“Most importantly, leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 283.]
I will come back in a moment to those who fall outside the protection.
Amendment 102 asks for a progress report. It covers the same ground as my Amendment 101, which was down for Monday but which I was unable to speak to owing to an aggressive Covid jab over the weekend. I am grateful to Giles Grover and the team at End Our Cladding Scandal for their briefing.
According to the department’s own figures on overall remediation, of the 4,329 buildings identified with unsafe cladding, over half had not started remediation at the end of March this year—seven years after Grenfell. Only 23%, 976 buildings, have completed remediation works. Within that overall figure there are 1,501 buildings 11 metres and over in height that have life-critical fire safety defects and where developers have committed to remediate or pay to remediate, but over half have not started remediation. Some 1,001 of the developers’ buildings have not even been assessed.
Looking at the cladding safety scheme, there are now 1,105 buildings within the scheme after the pilot was launched in November 2022. Work has been completed on not one. Work has started on two and the rest are in various stages, the largest number being in “pre-application”. Nor am I reassured by the statement by the department:
“All residential buildings above 11 metres in England have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding, either through a taxpayer-funded scheme or through a developer-funded scheme, protecting leaseholders from these costs”.
Having a pathway is like a traveller having a map. It does not follow that he has begun his journey. Where there is grant funding, the money is not being disbursed at pace. Because of these delays, the department had to surrender nearly a quarter of a billion pounds to the Treasury last year. We need a firm grip and oversight of remediation through the available schemes—which have no visible oversight or co-ordination—and that is what Amendment 102 provides.
The rest of my amendments have broadly the same objective as those tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, while getting there by a slightly different route. They would ensure that the Building Safety Act operates as intended, as was the Government’s stated objective in the King’s Speech last year. On Amendment 96, on buildings under 11 metres, the department’s view was set out by the Minister, Lee Rowley, on 22 April:
“Of those, we can count on one hand where there has been a problem. We are working with each of those three buildings to make the progress we need to make”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 636.]
Those three require full remediation but leaseholders are now reliant on the good will of their developer, without any mechanism in place to compel work to take place to the necessary standard. In Inside Housing on 26 April, it was reported that there are 586 homes under 11 metres in Barnet with defective cladding. One 25% shared owner has a bill of £23,000, and this falls outside the Building Safety Act. The other 75% is owned by a housing association, Notting Hill Genesis, which has said that under the terms of the lease the shared owner is responsible for all remediation costs. Mortgage lending on buildings under 11 metres is still inconsistent. Based on data from four or five mortgage lenders, an EWS1 certificate was deemed to be required for mortgage valuations on approximately 2,000 low-rise flats last year, although the Government have said that it is not necessary.
Insurance in low-rise buildings is another quagmire, with several insurers mandating work as a requirement of providing cover. There are many cases of difficulties with insurance; I cite only one. Aviva was the only insurer that would give cover on one low-rise block, but on the condition that HPL cladding would be removed within an urgent timeframe of four months. The judge at the First-tier Tribunal hearings was satisfied that this was the case, having seen the correspondence. There was no means of funding other than leaseholders. Cladding was removed in 2022 as instructed. It has taken two years to raise funds to replace the cladding, with the replacement due to begin in February 2024. The total cost will be £45,000 per leaseholder.
I remain concerned over resident-owned—or enfranchised —buildings, which were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and are covered by Amendment 99. Last November the department issued a press release confirming that this Bill would
“include measures to amend the Building Safety Act 2022 to make it easier to ensure that those who caused building-safety defects in enfranchised buildings are made to pay”.
Five months later, it remains unclear what measures these will be. Those who were encouraged by the Government to take ownership and control of their buildings remain beset with uncertainty on how and when their homes will be made safe. They do not have the protection afforded to those who did not enfranchise. The same press release also said that the Government would ensure that
“the leaseholder protections are not unfairly weighted against those who own properties jointly”.
This is addressed in Amendment 100. This is known as the marriage penalty, whereby a couple owning four properties together do not have this part-ownership accounted for in the leaseholder protection, despite tax law recognising this pro rata weighting. A call for evidence on this was opened in early April. However, time seems to be running out for the Government’s commitments to be kept in respect of joint-owner leaseholders—unless my noble friend can tell me otherwise.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly expressed his desire to ensure that
“those with the broadest shoulders must pay”,
so Amendment 100 would also help those who invested in buy to let but whose shoulders are not broad. It would ensure that all received protection for the first three flats that they owned, rather than the current cliff edge, and introduce a leaseholder wealth criterion, which is the same basis on which freeholders and developers are tested to assess whether they have the means to pay. The department is well aware of the case of Malcolm in Salford, a leaseholder of a number of properties with a total value below £1 million, who asked the department for help two years ago but has now been forced to enter into bankruptcy. Who will now pay his share of the remediation costs?
Finally, that amendment would end
“the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leases once prescribed conditions are met”—
once remediation is complete. This would ensure that the value of flats owned by leaseholders who are still deemed to be non-qualifying would be returned to somewhere near their market value without the severe impairment that non-qualifying leases currently suffer, even where no work is required.
Without this set of amendments, ordinary people across the country will still shoulder a desperately unfair burden, still face financial ruin and still be no closer to moving on with their lives, all at odds with the assurances that Ministers have given. I know my noble friend is sympathetic and I look forward to her reply.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I stand to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester has put his name to the amendments and regrets that he cannot be in his place today. As we have heard, the Building Safety Act 2022 contained welcome measures to address historic building safety defects, but the fact remains, as other noble Lords have noted, that it does not go nearly far enough. Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, only 21% of high-rise blocks have been fully remediated—and they are the ones that are eligible; there remain gaps in provision where leaseholders are disqualified for such arbitrary reasons as their block being 10.9 metres tall rather than, say, 11.1. The Act disqualifies huge numbers of people who are now trapped in potentially unsafe flats which they will struggle to sell. They might face very high bills through service charges and insurance premiums.
My right reverend friend’s diocese of Manchester has been identified, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, as one of the areas most at risk from inadequate cladding. More than 20 buildings have been identified with ACM cladding in both Manchester and Salford, and in Salford between six and 10 of those are yet to be remediated. The measures are not being implemented fast enough, which is why I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would require a statement to Parliament on progress, because, clearly, more scrutiny is needed. But for those buildings which are ineligible for support entirely, a statement to Parliament does not go far enough. Does the Minister believe that living on the top floor of a block of 11.5 metres is significantly safer than living on the top floor of a block of 11 metres, where both have flammable cladding? Beyond this obvious safety issue, my right reverend friend has received correspondence evidencing the difficulties that some leaseholders face in selling ineligible properties due to the difficulties in obtaining a mortgage on those flats. Will the Minister commit to ending this injustice once and for all?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments in general. I also much regret the news we had today about the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The points I am going to raise relate to a previous debate we had on the levelling-up Bill where he followed me and also raised some very practical issues on safety.
I want briefly to follow up the points I raised on 18 September last year during the passage of the levelling-up Bill, at Hansard cols. 1252 to 1255, regarding the issue of electrical safety and what are known as NCDs—neutral current diversions. I have no interest to declare, other than my 60-year membership of the Institution of Engineering and Technology and that I came across this issue via an article in the April 2023 issue of the IET magazine.
Since I raised the issue in September last year, I have been contacted by several electrical engineers. Indeed, I visited one factory involved in preventing neutral current diversions. I will keep the techy bit brief. A neutral current diversion can occur on the network when the combined protective earthing and neutral—PEN—conductor fails. The current is then diverted, making a circuit via exposed metalwork on buildings, including gas, water and oil pipes. This can lead to a significant build-up of heat, because those pipes are not designed to carry electricity, which can lead to fires and gas explosions. These conductors are susceptible to damage, corrosion, and general wear and tear across what is an ageing network. We probably have the second-oldest electrical network in the world—and it will vastly expand due to our net-zero obligations.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, before I get into the detail of these amendments, I will comment on some significant absences from our Benches. First, my noble friend Lady Pinnock is up for re-election tomorrow. She has been a passionate and doughty fighter from the beginning and throughout this tragic journey.
The second absence, as has already been mentioned, is due to the recent shocking death of Lord Stunell. His expertise and attention to detail, often peppered with a gentle sense of humour, were a perfect foil to my noble friend Lady Pinnock: they worked well together. We have missed him significantly during the passage of this Bill; I am truly a poor sub from the bench.
In truth, the significant contributions from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, are grounded in solid evidence and reality. We support and endorse them and I have no intention of going anywhere near the detail that they described. I admit openly that I have learned a lot.
All the amendments in this group relate to building safety and to the fallout of the Building Safety Bill and the gaps that were created as a result of it. Noble Lords have outlined them very well and I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will too.
After the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in 2017, in which 72 people lost their lives, it became clear that millions of leaseholders would need to make their buildings safe and habitable. The campaign group End Our Cladding Scandal—some of its members are here today—estimates that as many as 3 million leaseholders are caught up in the scandal. That is a huge number of families and people and, if you think of the people who they know, care for and love, you will be talking about considerably more.
The Building Safety Act sought to protect leaseholders from the cost of remediating these safety defects but, as has been amplified, the scheme has a glaring issue: a huge number of affected leaseholders are not included. We support the amendments that are clearly designed to widen that pool—if we do not just say “Let’s do the whole caboodle”.
Estimates included in a briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association suggest that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders of buildings less than 11 metres in height who are not able to qualify for support. This is in addition to the 400,000 leaseholders in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying due to other eligibility criteria, such as, as has been mentioned, the enfranchised leaseholders and leaseholders owning more than three flats. On learning about that a little bit more, it seems to me that this is a travesty. As has been stated by others, these leaseholders are facing eye-watering sums and many are living in unsafe buildings that are unmortgageable, uninsurable and unsellable. That they have been abandoned is unconscionable.
Amendments 93B, 96, 97, 99, 100, 105 and 107 seek, in different ways, to expand the number of leaseholders eligible for remediation support. This is the right thing to do. It is also obvious that some small adjustments can be made to make things better for more: for example, simply looking at the wealth—what is known as the affordability test—or the issues of joint ownership.
Amendment 93B, tabled the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is very clear that only a building remediation scheme will ensure that all buildings with safety defects undergo remediation, irrespective of ownership or building height. We agree with that. Too many people are falling through the gaps that have emerged post the Building Safety Act. Insurance has already been mentioned, so I will not make any more comments on that.
It seems to us that the pragmatic Amendments 96, 97, 99 and 100 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, are arguably the neatest way of achieving this aim. They simply amend the Building Safety Act so that these non-qualifying leaseholders are included in the support available to other leaseholders.
Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, would require the Government to report on progress relating to the building safety remediation. I am sure that she would probably agree with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment was drafted in response to concerns raised by End Our Cladding Scandal, namely the speed at which remediation is occurring, alongside the progress in ensuring that leaseholders have access to a robust and independent dispute resolution process, and the fact that not all affected leaseholders are able to access protection.
I note that the Government publish monthly figures relating to the remediation of building safety defects, but there is no clear target for when these works should be completed. It would be appreciated if the Minister could perhaps clarify this. I am reminded of the saying that you do not fatten a pig by simply weighing it. To us, the lack of speed or a plan or any sense of urgency is clearly the impetus behind the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seems that no one is holding anyone’s feet to the fire.
The Government also promised a robust and independent resolution process that would allow leaseholders to challenge building assessments or remediation. This has arguably not come to pass, with the process being more ad hoc and without sufficient leaseholder representation. It is vital that leaseholders are able to hold developers to account and ensure that remediation is completed safely, in a timely manner and at good value, but they need more government clout.
There was something mentioned only briefly that I would like to expand on a little. It seems to me that developers are getting all the flak. We all agree that lease- holders are blameless, but developers are not the only party to blame. Many of us still need to be brought to the table, preferably with cash, to provide the funding that will fix the problem. I am talking about product manufacturers, architects and designers, contractors, building control, testing houses and insurers. They all have a part to play and they should all play their part.
I suspect that, when the Grenfell Tower Inquiry reports later this year, the role that successive Governments, to be fair, have played will also be unavoidable. We feel that it is time that the Government really stepped up and gripped this problem comprehensively. They are the ringmaster, after all.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She mentioned a list of people who had a degree of responsibility. One of them, of course, is building control. My experience of building control in local authorities is that they can be extremely pernickety and difficult, and can enforce very high standards. All of us, in our different cities, will have seen examples of absolutely grotesque omissions and failures. But is it not the case that a local authority has a statutory liability, through building control, and that that, in and of itself, could and should be a source of remedy for a person who finds themselves in this position? On top of that, is there not an incentive for a developer, having built a structure and sold on the units, to wind up and move on to a different company to build the next one? We end up with people slipping out of the net entirely.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
The noble Lord has hit on a point; in some estates, you build one building that might just meet the requirements, and then more and more are built, and it expands the problem. I agree with a lot of what he said. I was trying to point out that we tend to say it is all on the developers, but I think this is a systemic failure of a series of accountable people. That is what I am trying to say.
Ultimately, I am saying that, sadly for democracy, this is yet another state failure—like WASPI, blood contamination and Windrush, to name but a few. The harsh reality is that the impact of this is felt every day by some people, and is growing: when a leaseholder decides that they want to reinsure or somebody decides that they want to sell, suddenly they are faced with, “Wow, I didn’t realise that there was all of this”. Therefore, the number of people affected is actually growing.
I will end on what my noble friend Lady Pinnock always says: leaseholders have done nothing wrong and everything right. Excellent campaigning from groups such as End Our Cladding Scandal and the non-qualifying leaseholders group has helped us achieve the progress we have made on remediation support. We owe it to them to keep pressing the Government on making sure that all leaseholders are protected from the costs of a situation they did absolutely nothing to cause.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I add my tribute on the sad and sudden passing of Lord Stunell. We worked very closely with him on the levelling-up Bill, and he was such a great asset during the passage of that Bill. Looking at his record over the years, his was a life dedicated to public service, to both national and local government. I hope the noble Baroness will take our condolences back to the Liberal Democrat group, and we will pass them on to his family as well.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to call this issue a sorry tale of shame. It is clear from the number of building safety amendments in this group and this Bill, and previously in the levelling-up Bill, that there appears from our debates to be a cross-party consensus from most of us, except the Government Front Bench, of such deep dissatisfaction with building safety in general and the glacial progress on remediation in particular. It was carefully calculated in the recent Times article by Martina Lees, referred to earlier, to show that only 8% of buildings in need have been remedied, not the 21% that the Government claim, and which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
As important is the huge number of non-qualifying leaseholders whose dreams of property ownership have turned to nightmares, as the horror of their uncertain financial position, the escalating costs of remediation and the impossibility of selling homes—I have seen evidence of this, as valuers are currently placing values at zero or negative—snatch away their aspirations and leave behind only extreme anxiety. Numbers vary, but the Times estimates the number of affected homes to be up to 1.5 million and, as other noble Lords have said, upwards of 4 million people are affected.
An excellent briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association points out that data remains lacking and estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders in buildings less than 11 metres in height and 400,000 leaseholders, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying because of other eligibility criteria. Many leaseholders are unaware of their non-qualifying status or are alerted to it only when they receive an invoice for remediation works or attempt to sell their property. It is important to remember that many leaseholders are understandably reluctant to speak out on this issue for fear of further devaluing what they thought was going to be a very valuable property asset.
The scale of this problem is eye-watering. I agree with comments made previously by Members of your Lordships’ House that, unless this is addressed urgently, as more and more leaseholders discover their liability, another enormous injustice scandal will unravel, which will scar whole generations of home owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the fact that this will escalate over time to the detriment of freeholders and leaseholders, but with the balance of personal financial risk sitting with leaseholders.
The system the Government put in place, which was subject to an update in your Lordships’ House at the end of March, may have made some progress, but as a spokesperson for Grenfell United said:
“Government’s shockingly slow progress towards remediation shows a complete lack of political will to keep people safe in their own homes”.
Giles Grover, of the excellent group End Our Cladding Scandal said:
“The majority of unsafe buildings across the country still don’t have plans in place to fix all issues”.
The 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the Government have estimated to be unsafe are missing from any plan for remediation as they are deemed non-qualifying, and the unbearable pressure of remediation is falling on the ordinary people who make these flats their homes. While the Government have brought forward legislation and statutory instruments to deal with this situation, progress has been slow because issues are being dealt with piecemeal as they arise. Even when legislation has been considered, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which should have been a comprehensive solution, too often amendments were rejected with serious impacts and consequences for leaseholders only now becoming more apparent.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, proposes a comprehensive and detailed framework to encompass the whole situation around building safety remediation that would give more structure to the current piecemeal approach. While I understand that the level of detail that he proposes in this scheme will almost certainly not be greeted by the Minister with the wholehearted approval that it probably deserves, I hope the principle of having such a framework in place and the thorough approach set out by the noble Earl will at least be a matter for reflection and future consideration as the Bill progresses.
Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, his Amendments 99 and 100, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 105E and 105F, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are aimed at ending the iniquitous distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. We cannot simply allow the nightmare that many non-qualifying leaseholders are enduring to continue.
We totally support the aim of Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in terms of holding the Government to account for the building safety remediation programme. The reporting mechanisms so far do not appear to have accelerated progress on remediation, although it has to be said that the bringing to justice of some of the worst developer offenders, such as those involved with Vista Tower in Stevenage, is welcome. I hope the Government will accept this amendment and bring regular updates before your Lordships’ House, but it would be even better if there could be target dates for outstanding work to be completed. The fact that remediation has dragged on for so many years is a cause of great frustration, anxiety and financial hardship to those affected. Do the Government have a view about a projected end date for these works to be completed? A deadline, even if it is not met by everyone involved, is great for concentrating the minds of those involved in remediation.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is not just developers who are responsible for this issue. But a big problem here has been the deregulation of the building control function, taking it away from local authorities and allowing developers to pick and choose who their building control inspectors will be. That has been greatly responsible for some of these issues.
Our Amendment 105 is simple and straightforward in its aim. It would bring the beleaguered non-qualified leaseholders, who are in desperate need of remedies for their building defects, within the remit of the Building Safety Act 2022. Surely, if we are concerned about ensuring that people feel safe and are safe in their homes, we can all support that. It remains our position that it should not be the responsibility of leaseholders to suffer the financial consequences of defective building. Amendment 105C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has a similar aim.
I support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his campaign to highlight the danger of—I was going to call them electricity surges, but I had better not now because I will get into trouble with him—neutral current diversion. I want to come back to the case that Martina Lees quoted of Viv Sharma and his Ukrainian wife Julia, who had to leave their nine-storey block when the fire service deemed it unsafe. It had more than 17 defects, caused by the original developers, which should never have been approved by building control. They have been offered less for their property than they bought it for 15 years ago, and they have had to pay for temporary accommodation. Julia has said:
“I’m now 50. How am I supposed to rebuild my life?”
That situation—which is morally wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—remains in place. Such situations should have been remedied by the Building Safety Act but were not. We now have another opportunity to put things right, so I hope the Government will do so by accepting the amendments before us today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I first add my tribute to Andrew, Lord Stunell. I have sat opposite him for many hours in this Chamber and in Committee, being challenged by him in a detailed but always good-humoured way. I am going to miss him. I did not know where he was this week to begin with, and I asked questions. He will be sorely missed, particularly on the issues that we talk about as a group of Peers. I send his family, friends and colleagues our best wishes. May he rest in peace.
I thank noble Lords for the amendments on building safety and for this thoughtful debate. It is an important issue. I will take all the amendments in turn and put the Government’s view. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 93B and 107. Their aims were debated extensively during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I thank the noble Earl for his years of important campaigning on building safety, and for tabling these amendments again and speaking to them in such a detailed way. We continue to consider his arguments and are always willing to listen carefully to the ways in which we could improve the current regime. That is why the Government tabled several clauses in the other place to clarify and extend the protections in some particular areas of this Act.
However, I reiterate that implementing a new building safety remediation scheme would reverse what has been achieved by the regulatory regime set out in the Building Safety Act. Creating a system which mirrored the existing regime would delay essential remediation already being carried out. It would also create uncertainty for leaseholders across the country. The responsible actors scheme, the developer remediation contract, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders are already delivering many of the noble Earl’s objectives, requiring developers to fix problems that they have caused.
Lord Empey (UUP)
On that matter, if a company was responsible for defective property and the company became insolvent, am I to understand that the directors of that company would be capable of recommencing building another property? Or is the Minister saying that the individuals could be followed through the courts for remediation, rather than being able to sidestep their responsibilities?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that is an interesting and very legal point. Rather than speaking off the top of my head, I would like to get it right and write to the noble Lord.
I move to Amendments 96, 97, 99 and 100. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for these amendments. Amendments 96 and 99 would extend the leaseholder protections to buildings under 11 metres and to collectively owned leaseholder buildings. It is generally accepted that the risk to life from historic fire safety defects is proportionate to the height of buildings. As this risk is lower in buildings under 11 metres, such buildings will require remediation only in very exceptional circumstances. Given the small number of buildings that have required this—it is three across the country; the developers have remediated two of them and we are in negotiations on the third to get that remediation done—our assessment remains that extending the leaseholder protections to these buildings is neither necessary nor proportionate.
Where leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres face remediation costs, it is important, as I have said so many times at the Dispatch Box, that they contact the department immediately and we will look into that individual building on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, we will write to the building owner to seek assurances that any proposed works are necessary and proportionate, and that the rights to redress are being fully utilised.
The Government understand that some leaseholders in these buildings are still facing higher insurance premiums, with insurers citing building safety as the reason for the increase. The Association of British Insurers and its members have stated that premiums should reduce where buildings comply with building regulations. We expect insurers to honour their commitments and make sure that premiums are priced fairly and appropriate to the level of risk.
Regarding collectively owned leaseholder buildings, the Government made the decision that the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act would not apply to these buildings. As a result, people would still have to pay to remedy the safety defects in their building as owners. Residents who own the freehold would have to pay not only their portion of remediation costs but for any residents who did not participate in the purchase of the freehold.
Since the Building Safety Act, the Government have continued to examine the situation faced by collectively owned leasehold buildings. For instance, the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022 provide owners in these leaseholder-owned buildings with access to remediation contribution costs. We have listened and we have acted.
I turn to Amendment 97. The existing leaseholder protection package is designed to maintain a fine balance between leaseholders’ and freeholders’ rights. The amendment distorts the balance disproportionately in favour of leaseholders and risks unfairly benefiting one group of investors, leaseholders, to the detriment of another—the freeholders.
Regarding Amendment 100, our intention has always been to protect individuals living in their own homes, rather than those who have purchased property for financial or commercial reasons. Changing the leaseholder protection regime so that it is linked to a share of ownership, rather than individual properties, would also introduce an unnecessary level of uncertainty and complexity into the protections.
Regarding cessation certificates, it is not clear what effect such a certificate would have or how a landlord would know when to serve one. The responsibility for the costs of fixing historical building safety defects should rest with those responsible for creating them. The Building Safety Act was clear that, when this is not possible, responsibility for remediation should be shared between stakeholders in the property. Concentrating responsibility on a single group would risk a number of unintended consequences, including freeholders becoming insolvent. Taken together, the changes made by this amendment would therefore complicate the regime unnecessarily and slow the progress made towards the remediation of buildings.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to Amendment 102 about the reporting requirement for building safety remediation. The Government are committed to accelerating remediation and protecting affected residents. The total number of buildings reported to have started or completed remediation works in England has more than doubled since the end of March 2023. Along with monthly updates, Ministers have also committed to providing the other place and those interested with regular updates on progress, the latest of which was provided on 26 March.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked about ACM cladding. Another noble Lord mentioned pathways. I realise that pathways do not mean delivery, but, importantly, all residential buildings in England taller than 11 metres have a pathway to fixing unsafe cladding, either through taxpayer-funded schemes, developer-funded schemes or social housing provider-led remediation. This protects leaseholders from these costs. In addition, 99% of high-rise buildings with unsafe Grenfell-style ACM cladding identified before 2023 have been made safe or have work under way to make them safe. The proportion of buildings remediated continues to shift as more buildings are being identified and 90% of all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding have been made safe or have work under way on them.
My noble friend Lord Young also brought up the issue of decanting. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to make it explicit that the costs of alternative accommodation for residents, when they are decanted from their homes to avoid imminent threat to life or of personal injury, or because remediation works cannot take place while residents are in occupation, can be recovered. They can recover those costs through a remediation contribution order, which is an important change to the Bill.
The department continues to take steps to support applicants to start on site more quickly. Local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive can take enforcement action against those not progressing remedial works. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect further action to be taken.
Some 55 of the largest developers signed legally binding contracts committing to remediate, or to pay to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in 1,500 buildings over 11 metres that they had a role in developing in England over the 30 years to April 2022. Together with the building safety levy, this will see industry contribute an estimated £6 billion. The department publishes information on developer progress based on quarterly returns submitted by developers, and this is available. I make it clear that the introduction of new reporting requirements involves time and cost, which need to be balanced against the need to continue our progress in building remediation. So I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her Amendment 105. Similarly to Amendment 97, it would open the door to changes which distort that balance disproportionately in favour of one group, to the detriment of another. It is important that legislation provides clarity for leaseholders, freeholders and the courts. The Government believe that having definitions of qualifying and non-qualifying leases in primary legislation provides greater certainty to all interested parties—an important consideration given that this is a pivotal part of the legislation for so many people across the country.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 105C to 105G, which seek to make several changes to the building safety regime and, in the case of Amendment 105G, the insolvency regime. Amendment 105C would rewrite the developer remediation contract by statute. This would unfortunately serve to create operational legal confusion about what developers’ obligations are, which buildings need to be identified and remediated, and what standards this should be done to, resulting in delay and litigation. I hope the Committee agrees that the Government should instead focus on holding developers to account for remediating unsafe buildings as quickly as possible.
On Amendment 105D, it is right that the Government have worked with major developers that have built defective buildings to secure binding commitments to remediate, worth an estimated £3 billion. However, I do not believe it would be fair also to target these specific developers to pay a disproportionate share of other remediation costs for buildings that they have no connection with. That is why we are focused on setting up the building safety levy to contribute funds to our programmes to remediate buildings over 11 metres. The levy is estimated to raise a further £3 billion over 10 years, or more.
We have had much debate on the merits of Amendment 105E, and I gave my views on Amendments 96, 97 and 99. As I mentioned, relatively small numbers of residential buildings under 11 metres or five storeys require remediation. These buildings are considered to be at low risk of historical fire defects, and I maintain that this change would disproportionately and unfairly place the obligation for remediation of non-life-threatening defects on freeholders. Meanwhile, extending protection to leaseholders who have not purchased the freehold would place the financial burden of remediation entirely on leaseholders who own a share of the freehold, making it less likely that these buildings will be remediated.
As for providing leaseholder protections to leaseholders who own more than three dwellings, I reiterate the points raised earlier. Landlords owning a number of properties are likely to have these as investments, and a fair balance needs to be met. The Building Safety Act was not designed to benefit investors; it is to help individuals living in their own homes.
On Amendment 105F, removing qualifications for passing on costs for defects in service charges would widen the scope of the leaseholder protections considerably. This would risk the burden of remediation costs falling disproportionately on landlords, whether or not those landlords are also some or all of the leaseholders in the building. The amendment also provides for members of a building industry scheme to cover remediation costs. I have already mentioned my concerns with the similar approach in Amendment 105D.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Needless to say, too many further questions arise out of all this, and there are too many points for me to be able to address anything other than the odd one—other than by making a very long speech and incurring the wrath of the Government Whip for the second time in the week.
I preface my further remarks by saying a word about Lord Stunell. His death is a great loss to all of us. He was forensically well-informed and always delivered his contributions with care, tact and supreme authority. I had the great honour of serving with him on the Built Environment Committee and, of course, I was with him throughout the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, as well as the levelling up Bill. He will leave a very great hole in our deliberations.
There is a fundamental common purpose between what the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I are trying to achieve. I simply say that I look forward to working with him to see whether we can find a common way forward—and indeed with other noble Lords, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor, and the Minister, because there is a consensus that something needs to be done.
The right reverend Prelate and all the Bishops have been fantastic in their support on this—right the way through the passage of the now Building Safety Act and Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and again on this Bill—in order to get justice for innocent leaseholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the wider liability and systemic failures. I get that, which is why I keep referring to the wider construction industry. There are lots of people involved there and they all have some responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to building control. This takes us back to the Building Act 1984 measures, which allowed for approved inspectors—as privatised entities—effectively to take over the role of local authority building control. The local authority then lost control of the process at that stage. The construction sector gamed the system. Indeed, I know at least one large body that had its own wholly owned subsidiary as its approved inspector. Where is the objectivity there?
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was absolutely right on the question of electrical safety, which is a subset of the fire safety issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has always been a fantastic supporter of what I am trying to do; I say to her and to all noble Lords that I am not set on the particular solution that I have put forward, but I am dead set on wanting something that protects consumers and protects leaseholders in their own home—this is the recurring theme. The chickens are going to come home to roost: the bottom line is that this will always end up with leaseholders by default picking up the pieces; they are the most vulnerable. The problems do not go away; whether you kick the political can down the road or whether you do not, it just leads to more grief.
I will not go through the comments of the Minister, but I thank her for them and will look at them with very great care. I am sorry that the argument still seems to be that, because this matter was raised in the passage of the then Building Safety Bill and levelling up Bill, it somehow should not be discussed any more. The point is that the problem has not gone away. The Minister may not want to listen to me—certainly not for much longer this afternoon—but she needs to listen carefully to what leaseholders are saying about their experiences. We in Parliament may start turning a tin ear to what is happening out there, but it is evident in the media and in emails to me and other noble Lords, and it cannot be ignored or avoided any longer. The mercury in this respect is going up the tube quite fast, and this will become more and more of an issue.
If my proposals are destined to slow down the process, all I can say is that, politically, I suspect that this is going to start speeding up very rapidly. The Government may say that they will take further action if the players do not perform, but this is another bit of finger-wagging. We know that something needs to be done and that it needs to be done now.
I end by saying that I will consult with other noble Lords about how we can take this forward. I certainly may return to this matter on Report. None of us wants to delay this Bill but, unamended, the agony for lease- holders will go on and on. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 93B.
Lord Best
“The Regulator of Property Agents(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body corporate known as the Regulator of Property Agents (“the Regulator”) to regulate property agents in respect of—(a) estate management of leasehold properties,(b) sale of leasehold properties, and(c) sale of freehold properties subject to estate management or service charges.(2) Regulations under this section—(a) must be laid within 24 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act,(b) must be made by statutory instrument, and(c) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.(3) If, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the progress that has been made towards doing so.(4) The objectives of the Regulator are—(a) to protect the consumers of services provided by property agents, in respect of—(i) estate management of leasehold properties,(ii) sale of leasehold properties, and(iii) sale of freehold properties subject to estate management or service charges. (b) to set and uphold standards of competence and conduct for property agents in relation to the sale of leasehold properties and freehold properties subject to estate management or service charges.(5) “Property agent” means an individual or body of persons (whether incorporated or not) which carries out the roles of an estate agent as defined in Section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 or of a property manager as defined in Sections 54 and 55 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.(6) The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance (by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form) and make other payments for the establishment and maintenance of the Regulator.(7) The Regulator must establish a panel of persons called “the Advisory Panel”.(8) The Panel may provide information and advice to the Regulator about, and on matters connected with, the Regulator’s functions (whether or not it is requested to do so by the Regulator).(9) The Regulator must appoint the following persons to the Panel—(a) persons appearing to the Regulator to represent the interests of—(i) leaseholders of properties managed by property agents,(ii) freeholders of properties subject to estate management or service charges, and(iii) professional bodies and associations representing property agents who manage leasehold properties.(b) the Secretary of State.(10) The Regulator has powers as follows—(a) to monitor, assess, report, and intervene (as appropriate) in relation to the performance of property agents who manage leasehold properties;(b) to determine mandatory qualifications to ensure that those undertaking the activities of a property agent in England have, or are working towards, qualifications that demonstrate competency in respect of the sale or management of leasehold and freehold properties;(c) to enforce compliance with a mandatory and legally-enforceable Code of Practice for property agents selling or managing leasehold properties;(d) to provide guidance to property agents on the regulatory framework for the sale and management of leasehold and freehold properties;(e) to register all property agents complying with the requirements of the Regulator and to revoke the registration of property agents who persistently breach the regulatory framework;(f) to raise a registration fee and an annual fee to pay for the ongoing costs of the Regulator of Property Agents;(g) to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the updating of the statutory guidance that sits alongside the regulatory framework for the sale and management of leasehold and freehold properties;(h) to delegate to designated bodies administrative and regulatory functions in respect of the sale and management of leasehold and freehold properties, as it deems appropriate.(11) The Property Ombudsman and other redress schemes, if any, covering property agents shall provide the Regulator with such information as the Regulator shall request.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a Regulator of Property Agents to regulate property agents in respect of estate management of leasehold properties, sale of leasehold properties, and sale of freehold properties subject to estate management or service charges.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 94 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and I am very grateful for their support. Before I speak to the amendment, I want to add my appreciation of the life and shock at the loss of Lord Stunell. Andrew Stunell was a terrific advocate for better housing, as a notable Construction Minister in the coalition Government and an eloquent speaker on a range of Bills, not least the Bill we are debating today, which he analysed brilliantly just a month ago in this Chamber. He will be very greatly missed indeed.
Amendment 94 represents the grand finale in our Committee debates on the Bill. It would empower the Secretary of State to establish an independent statutory regulator of property agents who sell and manage leasehold property. It would introduce into law the recommendations from the Government’s own Regulation of Property Agents working group, which I had the honour to chair and which reported in July 2019. The twin objectives of the regulator would be to protect consumers and to raise standards. Although the working group recommended a regulator for all property agents covering estate agents, sales agents and letting agents as well as property agents handling leasehold property, the amendment relates only to the leasehold managing agents, to keep within the scope of the Bill. However, many property agents involved in leasehold sales and management also engage in sales of freehold properties and in the management of rented sector lettings, so would be covered. Moreover, a twin amendment in the Renters (Reform) Bill, due in this House shortly, could extend the regulators’ role to cover agents managing rented properties as well.
The need for regulation was spelled out graphically at Second Reading, and many of your Lordships have shared details of agents’ misconduct brought to their attention. The unsuitability of badly behaved agents ranges from simply not communicating with leaseholders to misleading them and taking advantage of their leaseholder status with exorbitant commissions, charges and fees, not least in retirement housing developments. Although there are some excellent agents providing a good service and value for money, there are also inept, incompetent and exploitative agents whose reprehensible behaviour cries out for proper regulation. The urgency for regulating the sector has now increased, following the passage of the Building Safety Act 2023. This legislation has meant managing agents of blocks of flats taking responsibility for spending substantial sums of leaseholders’ money and of taxpayers’ subsidies to cover remedial building works in blocks of flats. It is now more essential than ever that such responsibilities are exercised only by reputable and qualified professional agents.
There is rock-solid support for a regulator of property agents from the professional bodies and trade associations representing the sector: the RICS; Propertymark; and the Property Institute, which comprises the Institute of Residential Property Management and the Association of Residential Managing Agents. Those property agents who are acting honourably are undermined by the unprofessional conduct of too many. Of course, the organisations representing consumers, such as Citizens Advice and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, are extremely supportive of the proposals encapsulated in this amendment.
A regulator would establish requirements for relevant qualifications and continuous professional development and would require adherence to an overarching code of conduct and to subsidiary-specific codes covering the different components of property agency. The regulator would have a full range of enforcement powers, from requiring specific changes to levying fines or removing the licence for a firm or individual to operate. That would provide the same consumer protections as for social housing, with its social housing regulator and Housing Ombudsman, and as for the financial sector, with its Financial Conduct Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service.
As with accountants, lawyers or surveyors, property agents deserve to be respected as professionals with expertise and with the proper attributes that go with professional status. Why would the Government resist a measure that is likely to be extremely popular with millions of leaseholders, which is earnestly requested by those who would themselves be the subject of regulation, and which has been given so much support from this House, particularly following the strong encouragement from the cross-party scrutiny of your Lordships’ own Industry and Regulators Committee last month?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest in having worked with the Property Institute and other groups that have supported this area for many years. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, alluded to, I chaired a committee working on one aspect of this matter, which I will come to shortly.
As the noble Lord said, it is quite unusual for this call for regulation to come not only from the consumers who would benefit but from the professionals already working in the field. It is virtually unanimous; in fact, among the organised groups, it is unanimous that this is the regulation under which they would like to work. The agencies and their representative bodies are waiting for this to happen.
As has just been described, in a way the reasons are obvious, not only outside but within this House. We know that, as was mentioned, the Best report was welcomed, I think universally; the Select Committee on Industry and Regulators has called for it to happen; and in the world outside there is still an expectation—a hope—that this might happen. A number of us want an election soon but we could even put it off—if that would be the only thing needed to get this through, we will put up with more of this Government.
It is fairly obvious that housing is not just bricks and mortar. Homes are fundamental to people’s financial and emotional well-being. Get this right, and their own quality of life improves dramatically. Get it wrong, and it is debilitating, stressful and expensive. It starts, of course, with the purchase, or indeed the sale, of a leasehold property, which is a more complicated transaction than simply buying a freehold house. So even at that stage, transparency, clarity, openness and proper explanation by estate agents are essential, and so, therefore, is the need for their expertise in these specialist areas of purchase and sale.
However, even once it has happened and you are living in the leasehold property, that can be a particularly fraught arrangement. With leasehold management there is a three-way relationship between the landlord, the resident—that is, the leaseholder or the owner—and the managing agent. Marriages with three in are always a bit complicated, but in this case, of course, you have the managing agent, who is appointed by the landlord but who has duties and, even more importantly, a close working relationship with the leaseholder. That adds an element of necessary expertise in how to handle it.
As important is the complexity of the law involved in this. It covers particular rights that are different from those associated with a freehold house. There are the safety issues, which have been well rehearsed in Committee. There are consumer issues and fiduciary duties, as well as myriad external bodies and requirements that have to be met. Frankly, managing agency is no task for an amateur. Agents need to be trained in ethics as well as the law and building regulations, and they need to be checked to ensure that they are fit and proper to handle both people’s money and their safety, and to prepare all the legal and other paperwork essential for running a complex operation. That is why we require regulation and oversight of this important profession.
As was mentioned, a code of conduct is needed across the industry, not simply to provide the requirements on agents but, importantly, to enable consumers to understand and thus to be able to enforce their rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, a cross-industry group that I had the privilege to chair and whose outcome was welcomed by the department has prepared the code and it is ready and waiting, so the work in setting up this regulatory body would be less than otherwise. It is there, ready and waiting for the legislation to make adherence to that code a legal requirement. That is the key to professionalising the industry and enhancing the experience of all who deal with managing agents—landlords and leaseholders alike.
It is not sufficient, welcome though it might be, to have an ombudsman to adjudicate and put things right when things have gone wrong. We need to prevent problems arising, which means raising standards, ensuring compliance, requiring training and qualification, and continuing professional development in a world of statutory requirements that seem to be changing, not just year by year but month by month, as is the technology involved in building, which we know about.
The Best way is the only way. Let us give the noble Lord what he has been asking for for so long and just get this report into law—let us get on with it. I am delighted to support Amendment 94.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will add a very brief footnote to the excellent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
The point I want to make is that the market is changing. We are moving away from a position where the freehold of blocks of flats was owned by the Grosvenor estates, Cadogan Estates, the Portman Estate —professional freeholders—and they were well able to choose responsible managing agents and keep an eye on them. We are moving away from that to a position where more and more of the blocks of flats are owned by the leaseholders. It is a trend that I that I welcome—indeed, the Bill accentuates that trend—and eventually we will end up with commonhold. Against that background, it becomes even more important that the managing agents should be professional. The background is changing and the need for this is now much more urgent than it was a few years ago.
I very much hope that the Government will be able to respond to the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and introduce regulation of managing agents. However, if they cannot, he hinted at two intermediate steps, which I think the Government might be able to take. One is requiring mandatory qualifications. As the noble Lord said, these have already been introduced for the social housing sector and could be expanded to protect leaseholders and private tenants. The second thing the Government could do, which the noble Lord also mentioned, is to introduce the mandatory code of practice, drawing on his working group on the regulation of property agents—this case was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
The Government could do one final thing which has not been mentioned so far. There is a government document called the How to Lease guide, and they could make that a mandatory document to be shared with consumers who purchase a leasehold property, in exactly the same way in which landlords and agents must provide the How to Rent guide to tenants. Therefore, if my noble friend cannot go the whole hog, I very much hope that she can smile warmly on intermediate steps, which might then pave the way to the final introduction of regulation of managing agents in the very near future.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I agree with the comments that he just made. I remind the Committee that I have been a leaseholder for around 30 years, and over that time I have dealt with several property management companies.
I wholeheartedly support Amendment 94 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I pay tribute to the dogged determination of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in pursuing the reform and regulation of property agents over a number of years, and, of course, to the sterling work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
I fail to see why His Majesty’s Government should not support this amendment in full. I also fail to see why the Government have failed to bring forward their own measures to regulate property agents, which, as we have heard, are long overdue. I know that the Minister will say that this is all very complicated and requires detailed and thoughtful legislation, that she will describe how property managing agents are making voluntary strides to improve their standards and operation, and how there are redress schemes in place. However, I do not really buy that argument. This amendment gives His Majesty’s Government two years to lay down regulations to regulate property agents. That is enough time even for this Government, and if not them, then certainly for the next one.
No other sector I know of handles potentially millions of pounds of other people’s money but is unregulated by statute. The City of London looks at property management companies aghast given the lack of oversight. I will give some practical examples of why property management companies should be effectively regulated, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee. From what the noble Lord has said, I realise that I probably should have said that I was a leaseholder when I spoke.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this clear, obvious and essential amendment, which already has strong support across the Committee.
I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about how both buyers and sellers desperately need confidence and how that confidence is utterly lacking at the moment. A lot of our discussion has focused on the problem of estate management, where there are clear and obviously pressing problems, but to focus a little on sales of properties and the need for some oversight there, I note that, last year, trading standards warned that many agents were not passing on the best offers that they had received from purchasers, as they are legally required to do, because they were getting commission fees from mortgage brokers, solicitors, surveyors and other third parties. They were choosing to go with what would produce a better result for them but a lower price for the seller. The only way that this is generally uncovered is if the would-be buyer who did not succeed in purchasing the property happens to look at the Land Registry sales price, says “but that’s less than I was offered” and creates a fuss. That is a sign of just how utterly cowboy the current situation is without regulation.
A report out yesterday noted that for 34% of the “for sale” stock on some major websites there had been an asking price reduction. People often need to sell for all kinds of reasons—including divorce, bereavement or perhaps because they need more bedrooms for extra children. These are all stressful, difficult situations where delays can cause damage and create uncertainty. We have a cowboy situation out there, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the people in the industry who want to do the right thing know that there are cowboys out there who are a threat to them. Therefore, the amendment is clearly essential to making our housing sector less of a cowboy environment than it is now.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which was so well outlined by him with his usual clarity and reason. It is an amendment that I was determined to put my name to, but its popularity was such that I was too late. However, I listened intently to the informed contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. This will therefore be possibly my shortest and easiest contribution to the Bill, simply saying that, between them, the proposers have nailed this issue with an amendment that should be workable and which we hope that they will take forward on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, listed the broad coalition of support for a regulator and indeed it appears that it is ready to go. This is something which the noble Lord has campaigned on for years. His report was widely accepted and praised for its thoroughness and its remarkably workable plan for the way forward, which he has stated in detail. Interestingly, the recommendations of his working group went much further than this amendment, so the movers of the amendment are being pragmatic and measured because they want to see change now—we support that.
I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on redress, particularly interesting. It reminded us that, currently, regulation in the property sector is voluntary and sanctions are limited. This Bill will not change that enough. Do your Lordships not think it is shocking that anyone can set up a firm from their bedroom and very soon be handling hundreds of thousands of pounds of leaseholders’ and taxpayers’ money while being largely unaccountable to the leaseholders who, on the whole, do not choose them to manage their block or control their service charges? This cannot be right. An individual can set up in business as a property manager without any formal qualifications, experience or even insurance.
It seems shocking that there has been so much good legislation to protect much smaller sums, such as deposits for renters, but nothing to protect leaseholders’ funds. We have regulations and regulators for individuals and companies handling much smaller amounts of people’s money. Leaseholders are usually required by the terms of their lease to make advance payments towards the service charge and to contribute to a sinking fund or reserve fund. These sums can be substantial, especially if major works are planned, which is why we supported the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, earlier in the Bill on consultation on major works. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has asserted that there is no other area in the UK in which money is held by a third party that is not regulated—unless somebody can tell me otherwise. The federation suggests that moneys held by unregulated and unprotected third parties may well exceed £1 billion.
If we want to change the behaviour of such property agents, there needs to be a much more professional approach to training and development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, exemplified well. Mandatory professional standards should be set, along with the oven-ready code of practice.
Even within the sector, the good guys—and there are good ones—do not want the rogues giving them a bad name and tarring everyone with the same brush. It is clear that the Government are procrastinating on this issue, so much so that several years after the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, very little has happened. The fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity with this Bill to introduce relevant property agent regulations proves that they have probably yielded to the anti-regulation voices among their ranks, despite their acceptance in principle of the case for regulating property agents, which has also been accepted by the majority of interested and affected parties. We are all seeking a solution, and Amendment 94 is certainly worthy of consideration, and we urge the Government to give it that consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to Report, definitely.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I have not heard a voice in the Chamber this afternoon against the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is such a refreshing amendment, it is long awaited, and we have heard, and we all knew, that his report was kicked into the long grass many years ago by the Government, and that is something of a disgrace. Even in the Levelling- up and Regeneration Bill debates last year, this subject was much discussed. We must not overlook that large cohort of hugely responsible and professional property managers—and there are many—but our focus must be on those who fail to adopt high standards, those who knowingly overcharge, those who take discreet commissions, and those in the pockets of clients with dubious standards.
This subject of rogue managing agents has come up again and again in this Bill; the time has come to act. The amendment clearly has strong cross-party support, and we have heard that the Government want to do it in principle. If the Government really want to do something for leasehold occupiers, this is it: simple regulation of property managing agents and other related property advisers; no one to practise without registration; a no-nonsense, strictly monitored and enforced system of effective supervision; and a simple, advertised complaints procedure for the lessees and rigorous monitoring of those complaints. This amendment has my wholehearted support. I hope the Government will adopt it; if not, I hope it is pressed on Report.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to jump in front of my Front Bench, but this is not a Bill that I have followed in detail. I did not take part in the Second Reading, and I have not taken part so far in Committee, but I was in the House this afternoon, and that is why I am standing up to very briefly address your Lordships on Amendment 94, which should be fully supported. I declare a personal interest, and your Lordships will see how I can link that to supporting this amendment. My wife and I are both freeholders and leaseholders of five flats, which are in an adjacent house to our own house. We personally manage them and know all the tenants well, and we try to deal with all their needs and circumstances, but the time will come when we have to sell. It is that stage that I am worried about, to ensure that these leaseholds are properly managed under the auspices of the regulator.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to hear from such eminent experience across the Committee on this issue. On one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about how far back this goes: one of my very first jobs in the early 1970s was at an estate agent. It was a family business run by somebody who had trained as a journalist and had a career in journalism, but he did, at least in that case, have the grace to train as a chartered surveyor as he carried on his business as an estate agent. You would have thought that things would have changed a bit over the subsequent years—it is quite a long time ago now—and it is ridiculous that it can still happen that people with little experience or qualification can be in charge of huge sums of other people’s money and property, and I hope that we can move matters on, at least in that respect.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his Amendment 94, and for his and other noble Lords’ persistence in pushing for the creation of a new regulatory body to oversee property agents. I put on record my sincere thanks to him for his valuable work on regulation over very many years. I note that he is also a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, which recently concluded that the case for regulation of the property agent sector still remains. Ministers will respond to the committee in due course.
However, as the noble Lord is acutely aware, the Secretary of State indicated in the other place that he did not consider that this was the right time or the right Bill to set up a new regulator for property agents. I know that he and other noble Lords will be disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, by this. However, the Government remain committed to driving up professionalism and standards among property agents. Leaseholders deserve a good service for the money they pay, whether from their landlord or their managing agent, where one is in place.
The noble Lord once again brought up, as he has many times with me, mandating professional qualifications. This was one of the areas that the Government asked the noble Lord’s working group to look into as part of its review. I assure him that that remains on the table.
At this point, I will respond to the interesting idea from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the How to Lease guide. Interestingly, I spoke to officials about this idea not too many hours ago, building on the guide to renting. That is something that could be put in place. I will work further on it and talk to my noble friend more.
Industry plays an important role in driving up standards, and we welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry and others to support this. This includes the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and her independent steering group in preparing an overarching code of conduct. I thank her for that. I know that the Government are very interested and looking at it in much more detail. This is an important development to ensure that all consumers are treated fairly and agents work to the same high standards. I echo what many noble Lords have said. We have some excellent agents in this country who do a fantastic job. The agents we are talking about are the rogue agents, who I know noble Lords are trying to ensure come up to the same high standards. I thank the noble Baroness for her work on this.
I should also stress that measures in this Bill, alongside existing protections and work being undertaken by the industry, seek to make managing agents more accountable to those who pay for their services. That includes making it easier for leaseholders to take on the management of their buildings themselves, where they can directly appoint or replace agents.
However, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed on this issue at Second Reading and today by a number of noble Lords, and the ambition of all noble Lords who spoke to drive up the standards of property agents. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and others spoke about individual cases where managing agents have been either good, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, or extremely unacceptable.
I will continue to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and any others who would like me to on this issue during the remainder of the Bill’s passage. I know I already have a meeting in my diary with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in a week or so. With the assurance that we will keep working on this, and following what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—all of them in favour of the concept of a regulator of property agents. I think the case is now unavoidable. My especial thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for supporting this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who, if we were allowed one more name on the list, would have been there as well. It was great to hear illustrations from real life from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, bringing a consumer perspective to the story. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shared stories of cowboy agents. I am afraid they do exist, and we should be doing something about it.
The Minister offered me some consolation. We are going to meet again soon, and she recognises the strength of feeling that everybody has been expressing. I thank her for continuing to engage on the subject and I hope there is something we can salvage, before the Bill finally passes, that will at least make a start on this really important mission of creating a regulator to the benefit of the 5 million leaseholders out there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Port Talbot Steelworks
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, with kind agreement from the usual channels and with the leave of the House, I will read in the form of a Statement the Answer given in the Commons by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. In doing so, I declare my farming and heritage interests in Wales, as set out in the register. The Statement is as follows:
“On 25 April Tata announced its strategic direction to proceed with its Port Talbot transformation, following the launch of the formal national consultation with the unions on 6 February. Technically, the consultation has not concluded at national or local level. The statutory consultation remains under way, and I understand that the company intends to move to local consultation with staff who may be affected.
This is a deeply concerning time for the Tata workforce and the wider community. I hold regular conversations and meetings with the unions and management, and will continue to do so as we develop interventions to build a brighter future for Port Talbot. On 15 September we announced an unprecedented £500 million government grant as part of the £1.25 billion investment by Tata Steel to build a new electric arc furnace. Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people, including at Port Talbot. All those jobs—along with many thousands more in the supply chain—would be under great threat were it not for the agreement that we struck. The transformation will be difficult, but the funding has saved 5,000 jobs in the company. It is not the case that we have paid money to put people out of work; we have paid money to save 5,000 jobs. We are also looking to modernise production and ensure that steel-making in south Wales can continue for generations to come.
Going beyond that, to support those affected by Tata’s decision we have put £100 million towards the creation of the transition board, which I chair, and which includes representatives of the UK and Welsh Governments, local authorities and industry. The funding includes £80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata—unfortunately nothing as yet from the Welsh Government, but we hope that there will be some in the near future. These funds will be used to achieve the transition board’s priorities, the first of which is to support those affected employees to find new, well-paid jobs. The board’s priorities also include supporting businesses in the supply chain and the longer-term regeneration of the region.
In its most recent meeting last week, the transition board endorsed a local economic action plan, which will act as a road map for how best to use the funding to support those affected. While the ongoing consultation is a matter between the trade unions and the company, we will continue discussions with all parties. We hope a resolution is found that avoids industrial action. The UK Government will continue to work closely with industry to secure a sustainable and competitive future for the Welsh steel sector.
I am confident of a good future for Port Talbot and the region, with the UK Government progressing the bid by Associated British Ports to the next stage for up to £160 million of funding to support our nascent floating offshore wind industry, and our progress towards establishing the Celtic freeport, backed by £26 million of government funding”.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
We are proud of our steel sector in Wales: it is an asset for the whole of the UK, so this closure is devastating news. Yesterday, in the other place, the Minister said that the Government would encourage Tata to come to an agreement so that there are no compulsory redundancies. What steps are the Government taking to protect workers whose jobs are at risk? There are also those in the supply chain: what commitments have the Government secured from Tata for the workers at downstream facilities about the security of their jobs after the electric arc furnace is built, and what are they doing to secure more?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, the deal struck by the UK Government with Tata will safeguard around 5,000 jobs in the UK steel industry, as well as 12,000 jobs in the wider supply chains. However, we all recognise that this is a devastating blow for the community of Port Talbot, and we are committed to doing everything that we possibly can to save jobs and support anyone who loses their job. This is why the UK Government have set up the Port Talbot transition board, backed by £80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, the people of Wales well understand the suffering that can be the consequence of industrial decline and the loss of a major industry. What we see happening in Port Talbot will blight the current generation and those to come, unless the Government invest in the national skills strategy that we need to prepare for the “new, well-paid jobs” that the Secretary of State talked about and for the future workplace. We need to develop skills for the remainder of the 21st century, so will the Government commit to a national skills strategy?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In addition to the £100 million funding for the Port Talbot transition board, £15 million is being put towards the regeneration of Port Talbot town centre, with improvements to the civic square, the refurbishment of the Princess Royal Theatre and improvements to green space. Seed funding of £26 million for the Celtic freeport will support regeneration of local communities by attracting new businesses, jobs and investments, and we are investing £790 million in city and growth deals across Wales, including the Swansea Bay city deal, which is building on the region’s strengths in the areas of life sciences, energy and manufacturing.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this will have a devastating impact on the south Wales community. It reminds me of the 1980s when the pits were closed; south Wales valleys were devastated and never recovered. I hope that that is not going to happen in Port Talbot. As the UK will now become the only country in the G20 to leave itself without the capacity to make virgin steel, how does the Minister feel about the legacy of this Government in making the UK reliant on foreign imports? What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government? Could he give us a report on them and are they ongoing?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a range of questions. What came through was her passion, which I think everyone involved in this Question shares, that these jobs and the steelworks are part of the community—it is an identity, not simply a job, and we feel that deeply. I am afraid to say that the Welsh Government have not offered financial support towards this transition. However, we are doing everything we can to create new jobs for the ones that have been lost. Without our investments, there was a threat that all jobs within TATA, not just those in south Wales, could have left the UK.
The noble Baroness also asked me about virgin steel. We have heard these arguments. We are ensuring that the UK, by moving to green steel, will be less dependent on international supply chains. By moving to green steel—electric arc furnace steel—we are securing the future of UK steel capability and our economic and national security.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the events in south Wales are a real demonstration of the Government’s absolute failure to deliver a just transition for the workers of the region and indeed beyond, and nor are we seeing the growth in renewable energy we should be seeing in uses of steel. I have questions for the Minister about the supply of steel for recycling. The EU is looking to secure the supply of scrap steel by 2027. It is going to bring in rules to ensure that scrap steel is exported only to places with very high environmental standards. That contrasts with the situation here in the UK. More than 50% of our scrap steel is now exported to three countries: Turkey, Egypt and India. Pakistan is the next country on that list, and none of those places is known for the environmental standards of its steel industry. Will the Government bring in a plan for the long-term future of a steel industry using electric arc furnaces?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. I find it quite staggering that the Green Party fails to recognise that moving to electric arc furnaces will reduce carbon emissions by around 5.5 million tonnes per year—the noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is a fact. The UK produces 11 million tonnes of domestic scrap per year. Currently, demand is lower than supply, so 8 million tonnes of that scrap is exported. This gives plentiful and reliable future supply in the UK for electric arc furnace production from domestic scrap.
Health and Disability Reform
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity at last to ask some questions about this Statement, because the route here has not been pretty or swift. The Prime Minister made a speech on 19 April about the need to reform sickness and disability benefits. Cue lots of headlines about sick note culture and the need for a crackdown. Then, there was silence: 10 days of expecting a Statement which did not come; 10 days of asking for detail; 10 days during which, if noble Lords are anything like me, they will have had a succession of messages from sick and disabled people who were very anxious about what was going to happen to their benefits.
When the Secretary of State finally talked, it was not to Parliament but to the media, of course, so we began to find details there. The Telegraph ran the headline, “Disability benefits could be vouchers, not cash”. The Sunday Times said, “Depressed and anxious face losing … benefits”, with the sub-headline, “Tories plan welfare reform as election divide”. I sorry to say it, but there we have it. The Secretary of State was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that
“it was ‘extraordinary’ that Labour was refusing to say whether it supported his benefit changes”.
At this point, there was no document, there had been no Statement in Parliament, and no details were available. In fact, when the Statement was made in Parliament, the Secretary of State did not even observe the usual courtesies of giving an advance copy to the Speaker and the shadow Secretary of State. I do not know why the Government would sit on the Statement and document for 10 days and then publish them in the week of the crucial local elections—it is a mystery.
Now we have the details, although it is not very detailed. I read the Green Paper from cover to cover, and if you exclude questions and the padding in the annexes, there are 14 pages of content. The Green Paper could hardly be any lighter green.
How did we get here? In 2013, the Government abolished disability living allowance and created PIP. According to the Green Paper:
“PIP was intended to differ from DLA by being fairer (by paying greater regard to needs arising from mental health, sensory and cognitive conditions)”.
It was also to be
“more consistent … objective … transparent … sustainable … modern and dynamic”.
The Government committed to undertake an independent review of PIP after two years and again two years later. There have been two consultations covering PIP since then.
Then, in July 2021, the Government published Shaping future support: the health and disability green paper, which launched a consultation on PIP and ESA. Nearly two years later, in March 2023, the Government published a health and disability White Paper which set out the Government’s vision
“to help more disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work”.
That paper announced the plan to remove the existing universal credit limited capability for work and work-related activity element and replace it with a new universal credit health element. It was also going to abolish the work capability assessment, which was people’s gateway to those benefits, so there would be only one health and disability functional test in future: the PIP assessment.
Now, a year after that White Paper, we are back to a Green Paper, which proposes abolishing the PIP assessment. What is going on? How will anyone be assessed for anything? Will the Minister tell us what happens to people who are clearly too sick to work at the moment but are not disabled? How will they have their support assessed when there is neither a work capability assessment nor a PIP assessment? Is the plan still to have a new universal credit health element, or is that under consideration again as well? The Government suggest that some health conditions can be taken out of PIP assessments. Can the Minister tell us which conditions they have in mind? PIP is also passport to the carer’s allowance. How will that work if there is no PIP assessment? Do people risk losing their benefits and their personal care from family or friends at the same time?
The Government said that DLA was the problem and PIP was the answer; now it seems that PIP is the problem. The fact is that we have a problem in this country: we have a record 2.8 million people locked out of work due to long-term sickness. But what or who is to blame? How much of that is down to the Government's record on the NHS? When the Statement was debated in the Commons, the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee pointed out that:
“PIP assessment providers confirm that worsening delays in NHS treatment are a big factor in the increase in the number of people applying for PIP”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/24; col. 52.]
We have also been hearing strong hints that the real problem is people with mental health problems. I do not doubt the Minister on this, but politicians in general need to be very careful about how we speak about mental health, for risk of stigmatising people or making them afraid to speak out or seek help. Can the Minister say whether the Government’s plans involve treating people’s mental and physical health differently? If so, can he explain the legal basis for making such a distinction? Can he also say what the Government will do about the near impossibility, for many people, of getting any timely mental health support at the moment?
A Labour Government would take a different approach. Among those who need the help of the state, there are some people who are temporarily or, in some cases, permanently unable to work and who need support to have a decent life. There are many others who need extra help to get, keep and advance in a job, and it is the state’s job to give that to them. For those people, health and work are two sides of the same coin.
Rather than blaming people for being sick, a Labour Government will support our NHS. The last Labour Government delivered the highest patient satisfaction level on record, and that is the record on which we want to build. We will drive down NHS waiting lists by getting patients treated on time, with 2 million more weekend and evening appointments, and we will ensure more support for those with mental health problems through an extra 8,500 mental health staff.
We will focus constructively on work, the other side of that coin, because the costs of failure in this area are a disaster for individuals and the country. Where it is possible, work is good for us—for our mental and physical health. Labour will have a new deal for working people, improving rights for the first time in a generation. We will drive up employment in every region, devolve employment support and end the tick-box culture in jobcentres. We will tear down the barriers to work for disabled people and provide help for young people.
Labour will carefully review the issues raised by this latest Green Paper. Clearly, sick and disabled people need appropriate help and support, but we also want to be a country where disabled people have the same right to a good job and the help to get it as anyone else. We will judge any measure that the Government bring forward on its merits and against that principle. I look forward hearing more from the Minister.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has just said about the lead-up to the publication of this Green Paper, but it can hardly be described as ideal. When announcing the Green Paper and the reforms to PIP on Monday, the Prime Minister said that something had gone wrong since the pandemic, leading to more people not working because of long-term ill health; he singled out the rise in people unable to work because of mental health conditions. Of course, I agree with helping people to get back into work, where that is possible, and I agree that for some people with mental health problems, it can improve their well-being. What I worry about greatly is putting the spotlight on people with mental health problems in such an unhelpfully divisive and—I agree—stigmatising way.
We need to go back to the root causes here. Can it be any surprise that so many people are claiming sickness and disability benefits when millions are still waiting for NHS treatment, and mental health wait times are through the roof, due to an acute shortage of mental health professionals, including doctors, nurses and counsellors? Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about getting people back to work, they need first to reduce waiting times for NHS treatment and tackle the crisis in our mental health services which makes accessing mental health treatment so difficult and protracted?
The Prime Minister also claimed that these changes are about “compassion”, but does this not rather miss the point that most young people claiming PIP are doing so because they have ADHD or autism, rather than anxiety and depression? Last year, 190,000 young people claimed PIP due to autism, ADHD or other learning disabilities, compared to just 129,000 claiming for all other disabilities. Could the Minister explain why, in the announcement of these proposals, there has been such a strong focus on anxiety and depression and how far this is based on the evidence?
I am concerned that potentially stopping cash payments will be seen as an affront to the dignity of benefit recipients. The BBC News website yesterday quoted one 71 year-old recipient, who said that for her PIP is about
“maintaining independence, not being a burden on my family and keeping my dignity”.
It could hardly be said that the reaction from the sector has been favourable. The charity Scope has said that these plans do not fix the underlying issues faced by disabled people. The chief executive of the charity SANE has pointed out that
“mental health problems are often invisible and fluctuate from month to month or day to day, and … assessments for benefits are all too often based on ‘snapshot’ judgments that do not take account of how hidden and disabling mental illness can be”.
Can the Minister say what consultation took place with the mental health sector and those who work closely with people directly affected by these issues prior to the Green Paper being published?
Finally, I turn to a wider issue. The Statement talks about a
“new conversation about how the benefits system can best support people to live full and independent lives”.
I am sure we can all agree with that, but we need to look at these issues in the round. Being able to live independently in the community can often rely on the help and support of unpaid family carers. Does the Minister agree that it is simply unacceptable for over 150,000 unpaid carers to be facing severe financial penalties—pushing many into debt or financial hardship —for often quite unknowingly breaching the earnings limit while caring for a loved one? What urgent steps are the Government taking to stop this outrage, and will they agree to an amnesty while it is being sorted out? If the Minister cannot answer that now—I accept it is not within the immediate focus of this Statement—would he please write to me?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Tyler, for their questions; I will do my best to answer them.
Indeed, the Prime Minister did make a speech on 19 April, and I was there in person. He covered a whole range of announcements in the world of welfare. I found it to be a very caring and compassionate speech; that is a really important point to make, because it did not come across in some quarters in the media. On how the Statement was communicated, I will not dwell on that other than to say that both noble Baronesses will know that apologies were given. That is on the record, and I do not think it is right that I should say anything more about that now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—and it was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—spoke strongly about mental health and the link with physical health. I want to make a few remarks about this, because we should see it as a sign of progress that people can talk about mental health more openly. The Government will never dismiss or downplay the conditions that people have; it is precisely because we take mental health so seriously that we need to reform the system. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but the current system does not reflect that. It is simply wrong to write people off when there is a growing body of evidence that good work can improve mental health.
In terms of the evidence raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I visited a jobcentre only this morning and asked various questions of the job coaches. I reassure her, or alert her to the fact, that the evidence is certainly there. I am sure she will know from her own experience there is an increased level of mental ill-health, some of a severe nature. Action must be taken.
But it is more than that; it has been over 10 years since the introduction of PIP. We need to ensure that our system is fair and accurately targeted at those who need our support most. Although we have made significant progress, the disability benefits system for adults of working age is not consistently providing support in the way it was intended. In terms of a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I reassure her and the House that we will and intend to continue to support those who need it. That includes those who genuinely are not able to work—that is what we are doing at the moment. In terms of what may come out of the Green Paper, and indeed this conversation or consultation, that is a most important point that I want to emphasise—which, by the way, the Prime Minister also emphasised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the importance of investing in mental health services. She is right; we want to ensure we are providing the right support to those who need it most, targeting our resources most effectively, and supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live independently and reach their full potential, irrespective of whether this is a physical or mental health condition—which alludes to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made. Mental health remains a key government priority; that is why we are investing £2.3 billion a year into NHS mental health services, and why we brought in the long-term workforce plan, which will deliver the fastest expansion of mental health services in the NHS’s history. Just this morning, as I said, I visited a jobcentre and found out more about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about PIP and mental health. I will give a few more statistics to back up the views I have given so far. In 2019, there were an average of 2,200 new PIP awards a month in England and Wales, where the main disabling condition was mixed anxiety and depressive disorders. That figure more than doubled to 5,300 a month in 2023. As I said earlier, we will and must continue to support everyone with mental health conditions, recognising that the severity and individual circumstances will vary and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Those with the most debilitating conditions should be entitled to the support they need, as I said earlier. That is exactly what PIP is intended to do, and that core aim will not change.
However, we need to have an honest conversation, which we have just started, about whether individuals with some conditions are better served by treatment and tailored support than by cash payments—which I think was a point raised by one of the noble Baronesses. To increase support, we have expanded mental health provision. Altogether, between 2018-19 and 2023-24, spending on mental health services has increased by £4.7 billion in cash terms, increasing access to mental health services. This has put 400,000 extra people through the NHS talking therapies programme, which the House will be aware of.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness about the amount going on, I say that there is a huge amount. We fully intend to go ahead with the reforms that we announced in Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper, because the Government are committed to doing everything that we can to help disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. These changes are separate from this PIP consultation but, as we develop our proposals, we will consider how some interactions with the current welfare system will be reflected in a reformed system. This will be carefully worked through and reported on before we consider introducing any changes. I say again that this is the start of a conversation. We are asking as many people as possible to input into the Green Paper. Already, we have received a good number of responses in the past few days since it was announced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—it might have been the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as well—spoke about too many piecemeal publications and not enough action. Since 2010, we have delivered significant welfare reforms, including introducing universal credit, a modern benefit that ensures that people are better off in work than on benefit. There are nearly 4 million more people in work than in 2010 and 1.1 million fewer people in absolute low income. However, we are now seeing a new challenge—they come up in government sometimes —that emerged in recent years and accelerated post pandemic. As the Prime Minister said, the current system is unsustainable, unfair for taxpayers and no longer targeted at those who need it most. That is why it is essential that we take action.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about carers, there probably is not enough time to go into everything I want to say, but perhaps I can give her some reassurance on the issues circling at the moment. We must carefully balance our duty to the taxpayer to recover overpayments with safeguards to manage repayments fairly. Claimants have a responsibility to ensure that they are entitled to benefits and to inform my department, the DWP, of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award. To be helpful, we have improved, rather urgently, customer communications to remind them of the importance of telling us about any earnings, including in the annual uprating letter that all claimants receive. We are looking to make the best possible use of earnings information collected by HMRC—so-called real-time information—to help to prevent some overpayments occurring in the first place. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are taking this extremely seriously.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have for decades been the person who has supported two near relatives in receipt of PIP. In fact, I spent two hours on Sunday night helping to fill in a PIP review form—26 pages—for a PIP application that was refused in the first place and given at an enhanced rate on appeal. My noble friend will recognise from this that there is a lot already wrong with PIP and the way questions are asked and formulated.
I am particularly concerned about autism-related anxiety. It is not the same as people who just have the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to cope with, which we all do. The brains of people with autism are wired differently. The things that make them anxious can very easily lead to a downward spiral that can result in suicide. I say to my noble friend—I know we are limited on time—that when it comes to the worried well, I put my hand up, because every day of my life now I wonder who on earth is going to help with those forms and applications when I am no longer here. It is a nightmare.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take very seriously what my noble friend has said. On the PIP process, she is right. Work needs to be and is being done to modernise the health and disability benefit services to create a more efficient service, reduce processing times and improve trust in our services and the decisions that we make. As part of this, from July 2023, a limited number of claimants have been able to begin their claim for PIP entirely online, which we aim to roll out across England and Wales.
My noble friend’s substantive question was on the important subject of autism. She will be aware of the Buckland review. It is important to say that we will link whatever comes out of this conversation, which may include matters to do with autism, with the progress we are making on the Buckland review. I am aware of the huge challenges linked to assessing those who have autism. On a brighter note, we know most autistic people want a job, and evidence shows that they may bring positive benefits to their employers. Now is the time to raise our ambition. On 2 April 2023, World Autism Acceptance Day, the DWP announced the launch of this new review. My noble friend will know that a task group has been set up that will include people with direct lived experience of autism, and be chaired by a respected independent person who is separate from government and clearly represents autistic people and their needs. The members of the task group will cover a broad range of interest groups to ensure that their views are represented. It is important to link this to what we may do out of the review on PIP. I say “may do” because this is a consultation, and we want to hear from people.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I declare an interest as a bishop relating to L’Arche UK and worldwide, which cares for people with intellectual and physical disabilities. The aspiration outlined in the Ministerial Statement to create a Britain in which disabled people can be supported to thrive is one that we all share. At a time of economic challenge, any responsible Government must pursue priorities and make difficult choices, but I have been in your Lordships’ House for 10 years and this kind of Statement reminds me of the circularity of this debate about welfare provision within that 10 years, where we do not seem to have made huge progress. We heard a lot from previous speakers about the varied needs of people with disabilities, some people with temporary health issues and those with severe and enduring mental health conditions. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has noted that almost two-thirds of people living in destitution or direct homelessness have a chronic health condition or disability. These people may be unable to meet their most basic needs to stay warm, fed, dry and clean. Does the Minister agree that energy for further reform of disability benefits might be best applied to meeting the needs of this cohort rather than seeking to make eligibility even tighter?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I gently correct the right reverend Prelate, or give my view, which is that the current PIP system has served a purpose; that is a fair comment to make. However, as I said earlier, after 10 years—it was our Government who brought in PIP—now is the time to review it. To put this in perspective and explain why we are doing it now, I say that since 2015 the proportion of the caseload receiving the highest rate of PIP has increased from 25% to 36%, and 7% of working-age people in England and Wales now claim PIP or DLA, which is forecast to rise to 10% by 2028-29. Going back to 2022-23, the Government spent £15.7 billion on extra costs for disability benefits for people of working age in England and Wales, and the OBR has forecast that the cost will rise to £29.8 billion in nominal terms by 2028-29. On the right reverend Prelate’s question, we believe that now is the right time to do something. In fact, not doing something would be highly negligent. It covers everybody at all levels. I know he referred particularly to those who are the most vulnerable, and he was quite right.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this Statement should fill us with joy, but anyone familiar with the history of this issue will actually be worried. The assessment has just got a hell of a lot more complicated. In the past, people have been told that they cannot get their benefits, whatever they are called, because they can walk 10 yards—except they could do it one day but not the next, and it was a nightmare. The Government have just made a quantum leap in the complexity of conditions that they are dealing with. That is good, but unless they back it up with better support to make the assessment then they are guaranteeing failure. There is no real argument about that; the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, hinted at it, and others will back me up,
I suggest that something the Minister could do to make the Government’s life easier is to start passporting the identification of problems such as education in earlier life. For instance, there are education, health and care plans, and the disabled students’ allowance. If we cannot passport those into the Department for Work and Pensions, we are going to waste a huge amount of time and effort. Most of these things will have been tested in the courts, or with an assessment. What are we doing there? When we are making new assessments, are we investing in proper identification? That has been a chronic problem in this area. I hope that by now the Government have realised that and put some sort of plan in place.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I encourage the noble Lord, with his knowledge and experience, to input into the consultation, as I suspect he probably will. He will know that the consultation is limited in scope to PIP, which is open only to claimants aged 16 and over. That is quite broad, but it is payable regardless of whether you are in work, education or, as he spoke about, training. We are keen to hear from people from all walks of life and backgrounds, and encourage everyone, including students, to respond to the consultation.
I take note of the noble Lord’s point about passporting. I know about EHC plans from my previous brief. It is important that the student diaspora and those who represent it also input to the conversation.
As I said, we believe there may be better ways of supporting people in living independent and fulfilling lives. This could mean financial support being better targeted at people, including students, who have specific extra costs, but it could involve improved support of other kinds, such as for physical as well as mental health, leading to better outcomes.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Statement and the Green Paper. I regard the Secretary of State as someone with a warm and sincere heart, and a clear head. I think he is an impressive Secretary of State in a complex area. I also commend his Permanent Secretary, who is a quite excellent man.
Obviously, the understanding of disability and ill health changes all the time. This benefit has been around since 2013, and it is time for a strategic review. Earlier this week, we were talking about the late Frank Field. When I worked on benefit agencies with him, it was quite different. With these vast sums of money, we should focus and make sure that the money is spent wisely and well. There is only a certain amount of public money, as another party may discover in a few months’ time, although I can say nothing about that. Money cannot go both on doctors and nurses and on welfare payments, so we have to look strategically.
There are partners. Charities have a big part to play, and the Church is important in dealing with mental health. I remember the effect of Pentecostal choirs on West Indian boys with schizophrenia. They went to the Pentecostal choir, and said that they felt like new men, and I am not surprised.
I want to talk particularly about employers. Good employers have transformed the support that they offer to people with mental illness problems. Prevention is much better than cure, if you can reach out and help someone in the workplace to talk about their mental health problems. I agree about stigma. If you have schizophrenia then you say you have depression, and if you have depression then you say you have the flu. There are a number of employers that have impressed me, which I would point out to the Secretary of State, where there are ally groups supporting people’s mental health, and where facilities and services are provided. Yes, the Government have a part to play, but so does the wider community. Work, for most of us, is a lifesaver. I have never been more miserable than when I was stuck at home during Covid, and I do not think I am alone.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her kind comments about the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary, with whom I am working closely, as she will know.
My noble friend made an important point about the variations among individuals who have conditions. As she alluded to, some claimants will have considerable extra costs related to their disability, while others will have fewer or minimal costs. This is why we have brought forward the Green Paper, looking at whether there are ways in which we can improve how we support people, where that is better suited to their needs and to the way they want to run their lives. I should also say that it is right that it is fairer to the taxpayer than the current system.
My noble friend is right that my department has been undertaking a huge amount of work with employers and that, with the rise in mental health conditions, sometimes people in work feel that they cannot stay in that job because of their condition. A lot of work has been going on to persuade or help them to stay in work, while holding their hands and giving them detailed, experienced, skilled advice on how to cope with their lives. That is working, and I could go into more detail on it, but it just shows that we are alert to the increase in mental ill health that has come about for a variety of reasons, not just because of Covid.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I want to ask the Minister about applying for PIP. Similar to my noble friend Lady Browning’s case, my son-in-law has applied. He has MS and has been advised by his consultant. He has waited six years for a diagnosis and is 32 years of age. His application for PIP was turned down. He works 50 hours a week—he is not lazy at all, or anything like that—and he provides. When he reapplied, it was out of date, and he has just been told that, because he applied online once, he has to use the paper form. That form is 44 pages long. He cannot write or hold a pencil because of his illness—he has his daughter write Christmas and birthday cards. Unfortunately, the person on the other end of the phone does not seem to be sympathetic about that.
It is diabolical that someone with a medical illness like that has been sent a 44-page document to complete in two working weeks when he already feels that he is holding out a begging bowl. But he has been advised to apply by his consultant because working the many hours that he does is having an impact on his health. I ask the Minister to look at that. If we are going to digital, surely the message should not be that you get one chance only to apply online and then any other applications must be on paper.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have every sympathy with what I have heard from my noble friend. I will not repeat what I said about the huge changes that we are making to the PIP process, but I am aware of the example that she has given of the 44-page form, which falls into that category.
Perhaps I can go a bit further—this is linked to the waiting times that we know have been apparent for applying for PIP—and say that we have seen a decrease in PIP clearances since August 2021. The latest statistics show that the average end-to-end journey for those applying for PIP had reduced from 26 weeks in August 2021 to 15 weeks at the end of January this year. So we are clearing claims faster than we were prior to the pandemic, which is going in the right direction, and we are committed to ensuring that people can access financial support through PIP in a more timely manner. Managing the customer journey times for PIP claimants is a priority for the department, and we are working constantly to make improvements to the service.
My noble friend mentioned the issue of online. Online is a way forward but it is not necessarily for everyone. We have increased the availability of case managers and assessments, and provided health professional resources, and we have been triaging and prioritising new claims in a better way.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the justification for this Statement and the Government’s plan, repeated by the Minister, is that the level of claims has risen significantly since 2009, specifically mental health claims. Since 2009, we have had a global pandemic and the acuteness of the climate emergency has become obvious to everybody. We have had a cost of living crisis; we have a huge crisis in housing. Surely it is not a surprise that we have very poor levels of mental health across our society. That is a measure of government failure rather than individual responsibility.
Does the Minister acknowledge that there are social determinants of health and that what we have to do is create a healthy society? This Statement makes no reference to that. Also, do the Government accept the social model of disability, acknowledging that the way in which society is arranged and organised is what truly disables people? Why is there nothing in this Statement—not a single reference—to what can be done to push employers to provide appropriate arrangements for disabled people, to allow them to continue to work, rather than focusing on the behaviour of disabled people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I know that we— the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I—have had several sessions across the Chamber, and I say gently that, for her to say that all the instances of mental health that have cropped up are purely to do with decisions that the Government have taken wholly misrepresents the situation. She will know, as I think most of the House will, that it is much more complex than that. It is linked to all kinds of issues: for example, the rise in social media and the fact that more young people are on their phones is talked about a lot. So I might chide her that she might have mentioned that, for example.
This allows me also to give one reason why now is the time to look at PIP, given the very sobering figures that I gave out slightly earlier. I now want to go a little further. If we did nothing, over the coming four years PIP spending alone is forecast to rise by 63%, from £21.6 billion to £35.3 billion. That would be for the period 2023-24 right up to 2028-29. But it is not just about the cost. As I said earlier, I hope fairly, it is important that we review PIP to be sure that it is directed in the right way, targeted at those who need it most, delivering the right sort of support for people with disabilities and health conditions and, as I said earlier, providing better value for the taxpayer.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just said and the point made by my noble friend Lady Bottomley that, whoever is in power, the present regime is financially unsustainable. However, I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said at the beginning: the tone and language that one uses when discussing reform is crucial. My noble friend gets that right, but can I ask him about the proposals for the so-called sick note?
At the moment, yes, GPs are under pressure, but they at least know the patient and have access to a wide range of information before they come to their decision. Under the proposals, this will be done by a DWP assessor, who will not know the claimant and will have a limited amount of background information—and relatively limited interaction with the claimant. How confident is my noble friend that that process will be fair and robust?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. This allows me to talk a bit about the so-called fit notes. I start by saying that we know that work positively impacts people’s physical and mental health and well-being. The current fit-note system, which is the gateway to accessing sick pay and ill-health unemployment benefit assessments, is writing off too many people as “not fit for work”. By the way, it is quite a sobering figure that it is 94% of all fit notes. We need to fundamentally overhaul the system, so that it changes the default assumption by focusing on what people can do with the right support. We know that 10 million not-fit-for-work fit notes are issued every year, so there is a real missed opportunity here.
On my noble friend’s question, we are working on a new process and there is a call for evidence out. This was published on 19 April and we are gathering evidence to assess the impact of the current fit-note process in supporting work and health conversations. It asks stakeholders how they would like to see the fit-note process change to better support people to start, stay at and succeed in work. To that extent, it very much chimes with and links into my department. That is why we are working ever more closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to take forward this important area.
Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we on the Labour Benches are grateful today to the Government for this short Statement, setting out where they are on the future acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group. As the House knows, we have been steadfast in our support for a free and independent press across the political spectrum. We will always champion the right of a free press to hold power to account, speak hard truths and expose corruption and wrongdoing.
We oppose foreign powers owning our free press, which has been consistently raised by parliamentarians across all Benches both here and in another place. We also welcome investment into the UK, in particular in news media businesses. For that reason this Statement is important, as it sets out how the Secretary of State intends to use her powers. It is our expectation that the Secretary of State will use these powers wisely to protect the diversity of our media landscape and encourage inward investment. The Government can be assured that we will follow the auction process closely.
I have a few questions today for the Minister. First, can he say a little more about the timescale for the auction? Can he assure the House that the Telegraph Media Group will at all times keep its workforce and unions informed? I noted from the Secretary of State’s Statement that the order governing this process not only prevents actions that might prejudice a phase 2 reference to the CMA; it also effectively freezes organisational and staff changes. To us, it would seem that union consultation is a small move on from that step, so have Ministers had any discussions with the relevant trade unions representing Telegraph Media Group staff? Can the Minister also tell the House what principles will underpin the approach to the auction and what steps the Secretary of State will take to guarantee that there is a free and open sale of the media group?
This is a year of multiple elections: we have local elections tomorrow and a general election, we hope, as soon as possible afterwards. It is essential to our working democracy that we have a free, honest and independent press. For our part, although we may not always agree with the editorial line of the Telegraph, we will champion its right—and the right of all publications—to hold us all to account.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I had always imagined that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was a Telegraph reader.
Lord McNally (LD)
Yes, the cricket.
We welcome this Statement. Sometimes I am teased by my colleagues about my membership of the Puttnam committee on the Communications Act 2003, but actually the Puttnam amendment to that Act is the origin of the powers that the Secretary of State has used here. The Puttnam amendment widened the reasons for Secretary of State interventions and has been used very usefully at key times in the last 20 years. In terms of these bids for purchase of our media, it means that we are able to take in the wider public interest and we support the Secretary of State in so doing.
I am not naturally a supporter of RedBird IMI, but I have some sympathy for the question of whether it is fair to either would-be bidders or the wider public interest to be so behind the curve and reactive when such bids arise. Media ownership is becoming more interlocking and intertwined between print, broadcasting and online. In many ways, although they might not like it, print journalists are becoming almost like the hand-loom weavers in the world of fast-moving technological change—and that is before we feel the full impact of artificial intelligence on the sector.
I would like to probe the Minister. Yesterday, Sir John Whittingdale in the other place pointed out that
“it is six years since Ofcom said that there needs to be fundamental review of our media merger regime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/24; col. 165.]
I agree with him, and I ask the Minister whether the Government are actively considering such a review.
With the Media Bill now before this House, will the Government seek cross-party agreement on clarifying and strengthening our media ownership rules for the future? I see the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is in her place. She has already put down an amendment to the Media Bill which could take this forward, but I think it could be done much more comprehensively at this time. If we do not do it comprehensively at this time, we will find that we have another 20 years of drift and that we are behind the game. It is essential that we have in place protection from foreign influences and state players, while, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, emphasised, seeing sustained plurality in both ownership and opinion in a free press—as all sides of the House want.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I should reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that the Government do not always agree with the editorial line of the Telegraph either, but that is the point. The independence of the press, holding Governments of all colours to account, is why the Secretary of State has always taken this so seriously and used the powers available to her under the Enterprise Act in the way that she has. It is why, as I outlined in debates on the digital markets Bill, we have acted to put beyond doubt and make explicit the ability for her to act in this scenario following the concerns raised, not least by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, about the potential influence of foreign Governments over our newspapers.
I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord McNally, for their comments and their welcome of the Statement. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for recalling rightly the role that Lord Puttnam played in the legislative landscape, which the Secretary of State and her predecessors have been able to use in this important area.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the balance between taking action to preserve the freedom of press, which we hold dear as a cornerstone of our democracy, and attracting investment into the UK. We have always been clear, as have my noble friend Lady Stowell and others, that our actions in relation to the potential influence of foreign Governments are not prejudicial to our welcoming of foreign investment more generally in media businesses, and I am glad to have the opportunity to say that again.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about consultation with trade unions. The Government will not be engaging with potential buyers or be involved in the sale process from this stage on. We have obviously been careful in the stages so far. From now on, it will be run by RedBird IMI alone. The Secretary of State made her decision based on the evidence provided by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority, which issued a call for evidence and spoke to relevant parties. The unions could have made representations to both those bodies—whether they did or not, I do not know, but that is the appropriate way for views to be fed in. The noble Lord is right to refer to the people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on this. Some of them, who have jobs that allow them to write freely, have made those points, but there are many more people whose jobs in these important sectors are affected by it, which I am happy to acknowledge.
On timelines, RedBird IMI will now proceed with a sale of the call option. The details of that are not finalised, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the next steps as they are a commercial matter. I will say, as the Secretary of State has, that she will monitor the outcome with a view to deciding in due course if she should take any further regulatory action under the Enterprise Act.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about our consideration of the media mergers regime more broadly. That work was already under way before this issue came to a head. We have taken the action that we have in the digital markets Bill. That action continues, and we will have more to say on that, not least during our debates on the Media Bill. I know that he and others will rightly use this as an opportunity to return to these matters.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up on the theme of timescales. I am grateful to my noble friend for the answers he has given to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord McNally, because they cover some of the issues I wanted to ask about. Could my noble friend also tell us what the expectation is for the Government to bring forward the secondary legislation that covers the carve-out for legitimate indirect foreign state investors, such as sovereign wealth funds? That is important in providing clarity for prospective buyers. This has already been said, but it is worth saying again: in raising this, I am very conscious that, in meeting our essential objective of a sustainable future for our free press, we should ensure that there is a proper channel for inward investment into the media industry. If my noble friend could give an update, that would be helpful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Many of the provisions we have made in the digital markets Bill require the Bill to receive Royal Assent, which I hope it will very soon, and they will come into force then. Once that has happened, we will be able to bring forward the measures we have committed to via secondary legislation. I will be writing in the coming days with a bit more information about that and about the consultation process on some of the points my noble friend raised, and we discussed in debates during the passage of the Bill. I will write to all noble Lords with further information about that very soon.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the questions so far have focused on the intersection between this and the previous regime, which was established, as noble Lords have already said, by Lord Puttnam and his Enterprise Act—it was not exactly his; it was the House’s Enterprise Act, and it was published by a Government we were proud to be part of. That has stood the test of time, but I am afraid time is accelerating. We are now in a situation with a rather hard edge.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, whom I worked with on the amendment we eventually put through, which will also be referred to within the forthcoming digital media Bill. However, that provides an absolute block against further foreign ownership; it is not just ownership, but interests in the freedom of the press and the plurality of it. Of course, there are other issues, which under the old regime would be considered, including those looked at in detail by Ofcom and the CMA.
I want to pick up on the exchange the noble Lord, Lord McNally, quoted, between the Secretary of State and John Whittingdale. In response to his question about whether these things need to be brought forward and accelerated, she said that she was
“looking at whether online news should be included in the scope of Ofcom’s powers ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/24; col. 165.]
I rather had the view that Ofcom had those powers. Could the noble Lord explain a little bit where he sees a gap and, if so, given what he said about timescales, whether we can look forward to the gaps being filled in? That seems to be a very important part of it, in the context of us needing to look more widely at what we want out of a free press, without reflecting government intervention and recognising that plurality is one of the main concerns. There are other bidders for the current holdings in the Daily Telegraph, one of which is a media interest. I wonder if the Minister would like to opine on that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord’s question gets to the heart of an important distinction: there are newspapers that have websites, there are websites that are news providers, and there are online services that are not principally news providers but from which people increasingly derive their news. It is right that we look at all those things. He is right that the Communications Act 2003 has served us well for the last 20 years but, as we said in our debates on the Online Safety Act, it was written at a time when the internet was in its infancy and did not look at it. Of course, we touched on that in the debates on that Act and will return to some of the points in the Media Bill. We will shortly consult on expanding the existing media mergers regime and the foreign state ownership provisions to include online news websites, and we will touch on other matters when we discuss the Media Bill.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long time since 1855 and the start of the Telegraph at the time of the Crimean War and when David Livingstone found the Victoria Falls. Can the Minister tell us how many owners the Telegraph has had in that time? He may wish to write to me. It was started by Arthur Sleigh as a way of airing personal grievances against the future commander-in-chief of the British Army, Prince George, Duke of Cambridge. We should have a sense of proportion. I thought Rupert Murdoch, Roy Thomson and Conrad Black—the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour—did not have British passports, and there was Max Beaverbrook and many others, so this is not something new.
However, I respect the way the Government have acted fast to block a loophole. I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Forsyth. In my day as Secretary of State, it was my noble friend Lord Inglewood who handled all the impossibly complex issues around media ownership. The Lords questions were always so much more difficult than those in the Commons, so I could simply sail through. I believe that it is extraordinarily important for there to be transparency about media ownership—so can the Minister inform us who the real owners of the Jewish Chronicle are?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will have to write to my noble friend on that and to give a precise number of owners of the Daily Telegraph since 1855, and of the Spectator, which is linked to this and older still. She is right to refer to a number of the foreign owners that there have been. We have made the distinction throughout between foreign Governments and foreign investment; it is important to underline that again. We have no problem with foreign investment in our media businesses, just as in so many other areas of our economy. The problem raised by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston and a number of others was foreign government interference. They made it clear that they would have as much of a problem with the Government of the United Kingdom having influence over newspapers in this country. However, it remains true that the Daily Telegraph is the only newspaper that has produced an editor who also sat in Cabinet: Bill Deedes. It has a long history of representation in your Lordships’ House and the fine line between politics and the media, but it is important that we maintain its independence so that it can continue to hold Governments to account.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I apologise—I have received a text from the Father of the House of Commons, who says that I never declare my interests. For the past 10 years, I have been an unremunerated trustee of the Economist newspaper, where we went through a change of media ownership, which we took extremely seriously. I am delighted to tell the House that the Economist is as flourishing today as ever it was.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
That this House regrets the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 556), published on 19 February, in particular the provisions preventing overseas care workers from bringing family to the United Kingdom, as this will (1) deprive migrant care workers of the basic right of caring for their own children, (2) increase workers’ dependency on their sponsors by removing the safety net of a partner’s income, and (3) make it harder for workers to report and change sponsors, increasing the risk of exploitation.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Work Rights Centre for its briefing and support, and for all its efforts to protect working people from exploitation. I am also grateful to the Kenyan Nurses and Midwives Association UK, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, the Cavendish Coalition, and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation for their briefing.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that my remarks tonight will be heavily critical of the Government so, before I embark on them—and as I may not have another chance before change comes at the next election —I put on record my personal respect for the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and my thanks to him for his rapid and humane responses to the immigration issues I have frequently raised with him.
This regret Motion concerns the Government’s Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules on 19 February, which came into effect on 11 March. The Statement implements part of the announcements made by the Home Secretary on 4 December 2023. This includes preventing overseas care workers from bringing their dependants to the UK, and a requirement that care providers in England that wish to sponsor migrant workers are registered with the Care Quality Commission. Regrettably, these changes will do little to combat exploitation in the care sector. Arguably, they will encourage and entrench it.
Before I go into further detail on this point, I express particular regret at the notion that carers arriving in the UK will no longer be able to bring their children with them. This troubles me deeply. We are asking care workers to care for our loved ones, but we are denying them the right to do the same in respect of their own children and partners. The Government have stated that they do not expect a significant reduction in the demand for care roles because of this change. Given the Government’s failure to provide an impact assessment to accompany these changes, a fact highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, neither we nor the Government can know this. Only time will tell, but I will certainly be surprised if the changes do not lead to a fall in the experience and quality of care workers who wish to come to the United Kingdom.
This concern appears validated by the work of two organisations, the Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe and the Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network, which support over 100 women healthcare workers who received their work permits before the changes took place and therefore have a right to have their children join them. However, they are repeatedly being refused visas for their children. The distress and anxiety of leaving a child behind are overwhelming, and many of these women choose to return home rather than continue to be parted from their children. One of these women describes the pain of separation from her teenage son as follows:
“The separation has strained the emotional bond between us. I am not in his life during this critical teenage stage. It’s devastating not to be in the daily life of your child. It is having a negative impact on his future. In truth I am now a depressed caregiver. This in turn affects my work as well. A happy carer makes happy clients”.
These women are exceptional people. Some are graduates and university lecturers, and many have medical qualifications —they are nurses, midwives and senior nurses. They have skills and experience that our country will not benefit from if we enforce the separation of care workers from their children and partners.
However, regardless of whether the number of care workers or the level of their experience falls or stays the same, we should ask ourselves whether this change is morally right. What sort of country are we if we exploit the contribution that care workers make to the well-being of our communities but implement rules that separate them from their communities and their children, across continents and against their will? We need to think carefully about this issue and how we ourselves would feel were such a situation to affect us and our families.
Separating parents from their children is terrible in itself, but there are other consequences that the ban on dependants is likely to have. The Work Rights Centre points out that the ban, which includes a ban on partners, is likely to do two things: first, to force carers into acquiescent exploitative working conditions and, secondly, to make it more likely that carers will be forced into destitution. This is because the income of partners is one of the only lifelines that migrant care workers have to support themselves when exiting an exploitative workplace. It is also often a vital source of income, given the cost of living pressures in the UK.
Turning to the first issue, migrant care workers are vulnerable because their visas rely on employer sponsorship. The latest intelligence report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the government agency tasked with tackling exploitation, noted that the most common vulnerability among potential victims of forced and compulsory labour in the UK was the potential victim being tied into a visa sponsorship arrangement with an employer. The report states:
“This on occasions led to workers being forced to work for the employer even if the conditions were unacceptable and the employer using the threat of cancelling the sponsorship if the worker complained”.
If sponsorship is revoked, workers have only 60 days to find another registered sponsor before becoming undocumented. Two months’ time is simply not enough time; not only do workers have to find a new employer who has a sponsor licence in that period but they also have to secure confirmation of a job offer and they need to submit new visa applications for themselves and any family members. To make matters more difficult, there is no central job search portal to match migrant workers in this situation with legitimate employers who have a sponsor licence.
With regard to the second issue, migrant care workers and their partners arriving in the UK depend on the money that they are able to earn while working in the sector; they do not have recourse to public funds and, in social care, they are paid at notoriously low rates. Many migrant workers opt for the additional 20 hours a week that is permitted under the health and care work visa in order to supplement their income, and many often need their partner’s income to meet the cost of living. A central concern here is that, without addressing the vulnerability that underlies work sponsorship or tackling the issues of low pay in the sector, banning migrant care workers from bringing their partners to the UK will do little but increase cost of living pressures and financially disincentivise people from reporting exploitation. That is before we consider whether it is right that those emigrating to the UK to work in our social care sector and make a valuable contribution to our society should be denied the ability to do so with their loved ones by their side.
I come now to the new CQC registration requirement, designed to combat the increasing and disturbing evidence of exploitation of sponsored workers in the care sector. Regrettably, the evidence suggests that these changes are unlikely to achieve this important objective. There have been recent media reports concerning sponsor licences being issued by the Home Office to companies purporting to provide care but with a very limited corporate history or track record of actually doing so. Some of these companies were successfully registered with the CQC before being given sponsor licences, although they had never been subject to CQC inspection. This has resulted in sponsored workers arriving in the UK to find that there is no work and being forced into precarious situations by rogue actors to whom they are often indebted.
These revelations suggest that merely being registered with the CQC is not a sufficient measure to prevent exploitation. Stakeholders have identified a number of loopholes—for example, that care providers can register with the CQC but then make this registration dormant. The provider is not then subject to inspection or other regulation by the CQC, and its dormant status is not listed on the CQC’s website. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that these dormant providers are obtaining sponsor licences.
These loopholes give rise to a number of questions, which I hope the Minister can answer this evening. First, why do the Government not impose a requirement that care providers wishing to sponsor migrant workers should either have been subject to inspection in the recent past or must be inspected before a licence to sponsor is issued? Secondly, have the Government considered imposing a minimum inspection rating as a requirement before care providers are eligible to sponsor? Thirdly, what measures do the Government intend to put in place to assess the impact of these changes so that the Home Office can properly assess whether they are delivering on the objective of ending care worker exploitation?
The truth is that this measure, while it has the veneer of action against exploitation, is without any real teeth to ensure that that exploitation is actually stamped out. The CQC has not been provided with new powers to investigate labour exploitation within the care workforce. Indeed, that is not its responsibility. The CQC is clear that its focus is on the quality of care that is delivered, not on labour exploitation. The CQC obviously has a vital role to play in regulating the social care sector in England, but the Home Office cannot abdicate its responsibility to properly audit employers before and after sponsor licences are given out.
On this note, the report of the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into the immigration system and its role in the care sector is deeply concerning. It highlighted, among other things, the inappropriateness of the sponsor licensing regime for the sector and the mismatch between the Home Office’s meagre complement of compliance officers and the ever-expanding register of licensed sponsors. Senior Home Office staff and managers told the inspector’s team that Home Office guidance is not sufficiently stringent to enable refusals of sponsor licence applications, even where significant concerns exist.
In light of these findings, will the Minister outline what improvements have been made to empower sponsor compliance case workers to refuse the licence applications of abusive employers at the earliest possible stage? If the department cannot instigate a greater number of sponsor inspections, how will it change guidance so that it does not remain flexible and enabling for exploitative sponsors? How is the Home Office protecting migrant workers who, as a result of enforcement action against sponsors, are left destitute and indebted? These are key questions, the answers to which are extremely unclear.
I close by paying heartfelt tribute to all those who come to this country to work in our health and care sectors in difficult circumstances and often on low pay. They make an immeasurable contribution to our country and the well-being of our communities. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider their approach so that we can ensure that they are all protected from exploitation, are able to have a decent standard of living and are afforded the rights to family life that we would expect for ourselves. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Oates has done us all a favour by ensuring that we are able to have this debate today—a debate which, as he has pointed out to us, involves some of the most vulnerable people coming to this country in order to fill a need that we have. It is that need that has brought me here to make a contribution today.
The debate is particularly timely, given that we had the Government earlier today making a Statement in which they seemed incredibly pleased with themselves because there had been a reduction of over 20% in the number of health and social care visas that were issued during the first three months of the year. That reduction with which the Government are so inordinately pleased is an area of significant concern for those of us who worry about the provision of health and social care services.
There are three possible hypotheses for why we saw that reduction. The first is that the need for health and social care workers was only temporary—that we have now filled all the jobs and therefore no longer need those migrant workers. That seems quite a stretch to me. The second is that the reduction represents the fact that some of the fraud and abuse in the system has been squeezed out—those visas were not actually necessary, so now the new processes have squeezed them out. I am sure that that is what the Government hope is happening. The third is that there continue actually to be significant shortages but somehow we have managed to contrive through these changes to change the system such that we are putting people off, for the very good reasons that my noble friend described —for example, there are people who simply will not come now, even though we desperately need them, because they cannot bring their family members with them.
If that latter scenario is true then we are storing up trouble. We can imagine that we will be back here in six months’ time, having to make changes again because our health and social care system is crying out for those workers. That kind of yo-yo effect does a disservice both to the health and social care system and to our reputation. We are perhaps a little imperial in thinking that people out there think of the UK as the only option; they have a lot of options. As long as the UK presents a good option, people from countries will come here. However, if we are yo-yoing—saying that we want them today but not tomorrow, and making it easy today but difficult tomorrow—then people will explore other options. When we issue the call for help because we need it, fewer people will answer. From a health and social care point of view, this is extremely concerning.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what mix of those scenarios he thinks is correct: that we have put people off who we actually need; that we do not need them any more; or that there was just a lot of fraud in the system, and we have now squeezed that out and therefore everything is fine and at a steady state.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for taking the Front-Bench slot from this Bench instead, where I can lean on the back of the Bench in front of me.
The inscription on the sculpture at Waterloo Station commemorating the Windrush generation reads:
“You called … and we came”.
It is the first and repeated line of a poem by Professor Laura Serrant, a very senior nurse, celebrating the call between 1948 and 1971 to people to care for this nation. One stanza is as follows:
“Our big hearts, skilful hands and quick minds
encased in our skins – of a darker hue.
Which had shimmered and glowed
in our sunnier climes.
But now signified our difference
– our un-belonging.
Matrons became assistants
Nurses became like chambermaids.
All the while striving to fulfil our promise
– to succour, to serve, to care”.
This is not the first time that I have used poetry in this Chamber to make a point which I cannot make quite so clearly myself.
I share both my noble friends’ regret regarding these rule changes as they apply to care workers—though “regret” is rather a mild term when we still look beyond the UK to other countries for people to care for us but do not treat them as we should. We fail to respect them as we should. We subject or expose them to experiences that do not show respect or, sometimes, humanity. We may not display overt racism in the same way that the Windrush generation encountered, but failing to recognise that caring is part of the culture of some other nations in a way that it is not in ours is, I think, an aspect of othering.
The paradox—or contradiction, if you like—of “We want you and we need you but there is a limit to how far we will reflect that in our rules and our ways of working” remains. It is reflected in the rules regarding dependants and in the risks of exploitation. My noble friends have covered that very fully, as did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—although, as usual, it couched its criticisms in very careful language. Its report on the lack of an impact assessment and an equality impact assessment is very clear and, in my view, uncontestable, as is the absence of consultation. On the latter, the Government explained that
“an external consultation would carry an unacceptably high risk of a prolonged spike in applications pre-empting the rule changes”.
In other words, they have made the decision and do not want to have anything fed back to them that disrupts that decision.
To say, as the Home Office did, that a formal public consultation
“would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes”
overlooks how our care system operates, which is of enormous public interest and concern. It is something that people think of in terms of their own lives and the lives of the people they are close to. The Home Office explained that consultation would be disproportionate because of the
“marginal benefits of consulting on these particular changes – which would be unlikely to … inform the policy in any meaningful way”.
I leave that to speak for itself, but to me it is an interesting approach to consultation.
I am a member of the Select Committee reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, and we have identified the care sector as one to be concerned about. I do not want to say too much about that, not least because we have yet to take oral evidence from the CQC, but the CQC’s expertise, or the limits of its expertise, and its capacity have already been identified as areas to investigate: just what is to be inspected; what about enforcement; how best practice is to be encouraged and maintained; and all this in the context of a route designed, as the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration put it, as applying to a largely compliant sector but applied to a high-risk area. It is a fragmented sector too, and it is easy to let people fall through the gaps. And it is a sector where exploitative practices are seen in providers who are actually now registered with the CQC.
How “the party of the family” can introduce rules about dependants, most of whom must be children and all of whom are subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rules is beyond me. How does this help in filling care roles? Is it a deterrent that care workers cannot bring their dependants with them? Deterrence must be a term which the Government wish had never been coined. It seems that, yet again, immigration numbers trump every other consideration.
Professor Serrant’s poem ends:
“Recognising the richness of our kaleidoscope nation.
Where compassion, courage and diversity are reflected
in our presence and our contribution:
Not only the hopes and dreams of our ancestors.
Human values needed to truly lead change … and add value.
Remember… you called.
Remember… you called.
You called.
Remember, it was us, who came”.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving his regret Motion and for the way he did it so fully and so movingly, if I may say so. I also thank the two other Liberal Democrat Peers who have spoken. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Allan, had an interesting perspective, with the various questions he asked the Minister and the way he delved a little more into the fraud that is strongly suspected to be currently within the system. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has taken a long-standing interest in these matters.
Anyone who works in our adult social care system deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and our thanks should go to anyone who comes to our country to join our adult social workforce and our NHS workforce. The changes the Government have made regarding access to and cost of visas, including family visas, have had a huge impact on many families across the country, and there are serious concerns about how lack of transparency in the Government’s decision-making only makes the situation worse.
Net immigration levels soared to 745,000 in 2022, despite the Government repeatedly saying their priority is to bring them down. This compares to a net immigration level of 245,000 in 2019. We in the Labour Party are clear that this level of immigration is unsustainable. We must ensure a level of controlled immigration that balances the needs of the country. Our efforts to create a sustainable system must be evidence-based and transparent. The Government have not been clear, in the large number of major changes they have made in the past year, about why decisions are being made and what impact they will have on our workforce and our economy. The Migratory Advisory Committee must be asked to investigate the impact of preventing workers bringing dependants to the UK, as well as the setting of salary thresholds, and decision-makers must consider those findings and reach a sensible, balanced conclusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who tabled this Motion and has therefore given us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Before I address the points raised, I will start by summarising the changes that have come into effect.
On 4 December, the Home Secretary announced a package of changes aimed at reducing the overall level of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. From 11 March, those being sponsored to work as care workers or senior care workers have been unable to apply with dependants. As we have seen with the latest statistics that were published yesterday, since May 2023 there have been, on average, 20,000 dependant applications per month under the health and care visa. That is unsustainable, so we had to act. We also now require any care service seeking to sponsor care workers in England to be providing regulated services and be registered with the Care Quality Commission.
However, the Government of course continue to be immensely grateful for the vital contribution that health and social care workers from across the world make, and we recognise their commitment in keeping vital services running and, obviously, in saving lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, noted, they are of course exceptional people.
The Government have provided substantial support for health and care professionals, over and above what other sectors get. We launched the health and care visa in August 2020, making it easier, cheaper and quicker for health workers to come to the UK to work, compared to other immigration routes. As we have seen in the immigration statistics, the sector makes very good use of the immigration system to ensure it has the workers it needs. Building on that, we added care workers to the shortage occupation list and health and care visas on 15 February 2022. Since this time, the Home Office have issued over 100,000 visas to care workers and senior care workers, before even considering dependants accompanying and joining them. These roles remain on the immigration salary list, maintaining access to these workers for the sector.
While we have a generous visa offering in place for the sector, the Government also have commitments in reducing overall numbers coming to the UK, and we have taken action to address that. Let me be clear that the provisions that came into force on 11 March apply to new applications and will not affect those already sponsored to work as a care worker or senior care worker through the health and care visa before that date. That includes those who were sponsored before the rules had changed but who have not brought dependants to the UK yet. In addition, there is a provision allowing children born in the UK to regularise their stay.
The Government recognise that the measure to prevent care workers and senior care workers from applying with dependants will dissuade some people from applying. However, given the large volume of applications, we believe that there will still be people willing to apply for care worker and senior care worker roles, and our offer to those carers is still very competitive.
There is no evidence yet on the quality issue that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, raised, but we will keep that under review. I also note that medically qualified individuals possibly have other routes available to them that may allow for dependants to accompany them.
I turn to the points raised in the Motion. We have clearly set out the position that individuals will need to determine whether they wish to make an application with the full knowledge that those working in care worker and senior care worker roles will not be able to apply with dependants. As I have said, we believe that we still have a very generous offer for those who wish to work in social care.
All noble Lords have raised concerns about individuals having an increased reliance on sponsors as a result of not having family in the UK. I accept that this may be a possibility, but it is also arguable that a person having to consider the impact of leaving a job, which might affect an entire family, has greater reason to stay than an individual without a family to support. I also caution that only 25% of dependants are estimated to be in work, meaning that many would not be able to rely on additional income to support the family in any event. I also do not believe that these changes make it harder to report or change an employer. I must say that we will not tolerate any instances of abuse by employers and, where we see evidence of it, we will take action.
Officials from the Home Office and the DHSC are working closely with the sector to improve their interactions with the immigration system and to help target non-compliance and exploitation. We strongly condemn offering employment to health and care worker visa holders under false pretences. Those found operating unlawfully may face prosecution and/or removal from the sponsorship register.
During UKVI compliance work, we have encountered a significant number of non-genuine employers and, in very high numbers, employers not being able to evidence hours of work available to migrants. That has led to two strands of action. First, considerable scrutiny is applied to employers who are asking to bring over a migrant worker, to ensure that they have enough work guaranteed to occupy that worker in addition to their current workforce. Secondly, compliance activity is being taken against employers currently sponsoring migrant workers when they are either unfit to do so or do not have sufficient work levels available for that migrant. Given the level of displaced workers and abuse in the sector—and the need to operate a fair immigration system that treats all workers, employers and sectors equally—it would not be appropriate to relax those requirements for the care sector.
The Home Office has also dedicated resource to policing the sponsorship system to ensure that sponsors adhere to their duties and wider UK law. A person who is sponsored to work in the UK is linked to that employer, but they are free to seek alternative sponsorship and to make a new application if they do not believe that they are being treated fairly. If a person were here with a family and decided to leave their job, they would still need to find alternative sponsored employment before their leave was curtailed. As I mentioned earlier, the additional income from a working partner would help only if they were one of the 25% of dependants estimated to be in employment. Those individuals whose sponsor’s licence has been revoked can seek alternative employment, providing they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. Work is under way, across government, with the sector to address unethical recruitment practices and to signpost migrants to help with their rights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for bringing up the subject of the domestic workforce, because a lot of work is being done on that and I welcome the opportunity to run through it quickly. We remain committed to developing the domestic workforce by investing in retention through better workforce training, recognition and career progression. We are launching a new career structure for care workers, so that all staff can build their careers and more experienced care workers are recognised for their skills. We are creating a new qualification and digital skills record to reduce the need for retraining costs and additional training time for care workers every time they might move employer. Reduced retraining also means that care workers can spend more time caring for people. We are increasing funding for learning and development, creating thousands of new training places, so that care workers can improve their skills and gain qualifications.
The Government have made available up to £8.6 billion in additional funding over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support adult social care and discharge. That includes the £500 million announced this January, which has been made available specifically to support local authorities with the cost of social care in 2024-25. We provided £15 million for the 2023-24 financial year to help local areas to establish support arrangements for ethical international recruitment in adult social care and bolster the workforce. We are also working with the DWP to promote adult social care careers to jobseekers, and funding sector partners to provide support to employers and commissioners to improve recruitment and retention.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked a number of questions about immigration non-compliance and migrant exploitation. As I have said, we are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on that. UKVI also works closely with law enforcement counterparts on areas that it identifies go beyond immigration non-compliance. He invited me to speculate on the type of offences that may be committed, but I obviously cannot do that because I do not know. Some of those may well represent fraud, but it would not be for me to say. As I also mentioned, we have a large number of compliance officers who ensure that the system is properly policed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a perfectly good question about the impact assessment. A full impact assessment has not been published, and I have been before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to discuss the matter. We published a Statement on the estimated impact on immigration in December 2023. The Government are still working through assumptions on the impact assessment, but we intend to publish it as soon as that work has been completed. The estimated impact on visa in-flows was published in December 2023, which estimated a 22% reduction based on the number of workers who could be matched to the register of CQC-regulated businesses—equivalent to around 20,000, if the rule had been in place in the year to September 2023.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are committed to bringing down the overall level of net migration. We believe that the package of measures announced on 4 December strikes the right balance between cutting the numbers of people who come to the UK and attracting those with the required skills and experience. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue—and for his very kind words—and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I will read the report of it carefully and, if I have not answered any questions, I will do so by letter.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. A number of important points have been made, but I fear that he may be a little complacent about the ability of care workers who feel that they are being exploited to leave their employment and find other employment. It is an incredibly difficult situation for them, and things certainly do not seem to operate in that way.
There are very important issues around the enforcement of and resources for compliance. The Minister seemed to suggest that the Home Office had the necessary resources for that job but, as I pointed out, that was certainly not the view of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also made an important point about the idea of a single enforcement authority, because we need absolute clarity about who is enforcing things.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Allan and Lady Hamwee for taking part in this debate and for, as always, bringing important thoughts to it. I also thank her for the passion that she has always shown on these issues.
I would have wished to divide the Chamber on this matter in different circumstances, but that might not be the wisest idea tonight. I am sure that we will return to the issue in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion to Regret.
Immigration Update
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration, Tom Pursglove, on immigration. The Statement is as follows:
“This Government are committed to reducing immigration—both legal and illegal—into the UK. Legal immigration has risen in recent years in part because we have extended the hand of friendship to people fleeing conflict and persecution in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. That was the right thing to do. But another factor has been rising numbers of overseas students and workers and their dependants, which have risen to unsustainable levels. The steps that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last year to cut net migration will mean that around 300,000 people who would have been eligible to come to the UK will now not be.
We have restricted most students from bringing dependent family members, increased the salary that most skilled worker migrants need to earn to get a visa by almost 50% to £38,700, stopped overseas care workers bringing dependent family members with them, raised the minimum income for family visas to ensure that people are supported financially, and scrapped the 20% going rate salary discount for shortage occupations and replaced the shortage occupation list with a new immigration salary discount list. The latest estimates from the Office for National Statistics show that net migration in the year to June 2023 was 672,000, 73,000 lower than six months earlier. These are provisional figures and we need to go further, but these are encouraging signs.
The latest statistics show that the numbers applying for skilled worker, health and care and study visas in the first three months of 2024 were down by 24% on the same period last year. We removed the right to bring dependants on the student visa route for those starting courses from 1 January other than those on postgraduate research programmes and government-funded scholarships. Applications for student dependant visas have fallen by 80% since our changes came into force. From 11 March 2024, we have stopped overseas care workers bringing family dependants, and have required social care firms in England to be Care Quality Commission-registered in order to sponsor visas. In the year ending September 2023, an estimated 120,000 dependants came via that route. In the first three months of 2024, applications for health and care visas were down by 28%. This is just the start; most of our changes have only just come into force.
Meanwhile, we remain committed to stopping the boats. Following Royal Assent to the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 and the ratification of our treaty with Rwanda, we can operationalise our plan to relocate illegal migrants to Rwanda. Rwanda is a safe country that has repeatedly shown its ability to offer asylum seekers a chance to build new and prosperous lives. It has a strong and successful track record in resettling people, hosting more than 135,000 refugees, and it stands ready to accept thousands more who want to rebuild their lives and who cannot stay in the UK. Once flights begin, we will have added another vital deterrent to crack down on the people-smuggling gangs who treat human beings as cargo. The first illegal migrants set to be removed to Rwanda have now been detained, following a series of nationwide operations this week. Operational teams within the Home Office have been working at pace to safely and swiftly detain individuals in scope for relocation to Rwanda, with more activity due to be carried out in the coming weeks. This action is a key part of the plan to deliver flights to Rwanda in the next few weeks.
We have made solid progress in stopping the boats but we need to finish the job. The number of small boat arrivals fell by more than a third in 2023, and our work with international partners prevented more than 26,000 crossings last year, as well as helping to dismantle 82 organised crime groups since July 2020. Our new agreement with Albania has cut Albanian small boat arrivals by more than 90%, and we recently signed a ground-breaking deal with FRONTEX—the European border and coastguard agency—which marks another crucial step in securing our borders. An initial cohort in the thousands of suitable cases for removal to Rwanda has been identified and placed on immigration bail, with strict reporting conditions. We have a range of measures in place to ensure that we remain in contact with individuals, including both face-to-face and digital reporting, and Immigration Enforcement has a range of powers to trace and locate any individuals who abscond, as well as a dedicated team of tracing officers who work with the police, other government agencies and commercial companies to help trace individuals and bring them back into contact. It would be inappropriate to comment further on operational activity.
Immigration has enriched this country beyond measure, but it needs to be sustainable and it needs to be fair. Legal immigration should be focused on helping those in genuine need, and on ensuring that our economy has the skills it needs to flourish. It is simply not right for those who can afford to pay gangsters to jump ahead of those who would play by the rules and whose need is greater. No one needs to flee to the UK from a safe country such as France. Illegal immigration and unsustainable legal migration both place intolerable burdens on communities, and over time they will undermine support for immigration in general, which would be a tragedy. That is why the Government have a plan, which we are putting into action. There is further to go but we are seeing the positive impact of it already. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement; I have a number of questions for him.
What is the Government’s plan for the 99% of people who will not be sent to Rwanda? How will the Government fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to detain everyone crossing the channel, given that there is fewer than one detention space for every 10 migrants who make that journey? Of the 5,700 migrants who have been identified for removal, only 2,145 can be located. Where are these people and what is the department doing about tracking them down? Can the Minister explain what will happen to the more than 150,000 people whom the Refugee Council estimates cannot be removed to Rwanda or returned to their home country since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act 2023? Does he accept that these people are stuck in limbo and are likely to be reliant on Home Office support or to go underground?
Do the Government have an updated figure for how much money has been sent to Rwanda? Will they publish the advice that they have received on their new visa rules and what impact they believe these changes will have on key industries such as hospitality and social care? What action are the Government taking to ensure domestic social care training and recruitment so that elderly and vulnerable populations are cared for? How are they working cross-department to address this issue? I remember that the Minister largely answered that question in the previous business. Will the Government commit to publishing their analysis on the workforce and economic impact of their immigration policies, and are they considering stronger measures to crack down on rogue care sponsors?
There has been a huge amount of publicity in the last couple of days about the one volunteer who was flown to Rwanda with £3,000. I understand from reading the papers that he was from Africa in any event. In addition to that £3,000, is there any support? On other schemes, people being sent to Rwanda are likely to get a five-year support package as they make their new lives in Rwanda. Will the individual who voluntarily flew out also be entitled to this package of support? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I am sorry that he has been given the task of defending what reads more like a press statement on the eve of an election than an update on overall policy, but perhaps I am prejudiced. I am sorry that the Statement does not extend to putting our policy into an international context and telling the House anything about work being done with international partners.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am interested in this well-covered story of the individual who has received £3,000 under the old scheme to go to Rwanda. What support will he receive to help him settle in? Will he have to pay for it out of the £3,000? Can the Minister give a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers who are not missing but who cannot be found? How many are due to report within the next week, the next month and so on? What is the “range of measures” to remain in contact with those people and how does the Home Office know where they are when they are reporting digitally? Will the Government keep the House updated on this?
The Statement refers to the minimum income requirement for family visas, which we will be debating the week after next. We have just debated overseas care workers bringing dependants, so I will ask some questions about students—most, but not all, of whom similarly cannot bring dependent family members—and about young people.
On students, where has there been a reduction in student visa applications? Is there data to show which courses have a reduction in international student numbers? Have the Government consulted universities recently about the impact of international student numbers on their university funding? Is the reduction in numbers reflected more in certain nationalities than others? What would be the long-term impact on university funding? Has an assessment been made of the impact of the policy to reduce international student numbers on the soft power that creates for the UK internationally?
With regard to young people, the youth mobility visa scheme offered by the EU has been rejected by the Government and I understand that Labour takes the same view. Why have the Government rejected this out of hand? Details would need to be negotiated but it is a sensible proposition. It would boost our economy—especially in hospitality and tourism—offer important opportunities for young people to live and work abroad and have an important role in our relationship with the rest of Europe. Why have the Government rejected the proposal?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those questions. I will start with the cohort that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to. He asserted that of the 5,700 that have been identified, the Home Office has located only 2,143. This is not accurate. In preparation for flights taking off, we have identified the initial cohort to be removed to Rwanda, as was said in the Statement, and have dedicated caseworkers who are ready to process any claims. An initial cohort of around 2,000 suitable cases has been identified for removal. They have been placed on immigration bail with strict reporting conditions. For those outside this group, there is still a wide range of tools to maintain contact with them, including face-to-face and digital reporting, while many individuals are also residing in Home Office accommodation. We are confident of their whereabouts. Once the decision to detain is made, this is just one of the cohorts of people who may be eligible for removal to Rwanda.
As to those who may or may not get sent to Rwanda, I am not qualified to comment on those particular statistics. I certainly did not recognise the one that the noble Lord quoted from the Refugee Council, so I will refer back to Hansard and, if I may, I will reply in more detail. On money, I do not know how much more has been released to Rwanda. I am basically up to date with what I read in the papers, which is that when the treaty was ratified there was another release—but, again, I may have to come back and correct the record on that.
The noble Lord asked me again, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the impact assessment. As I said on the previous group, the intention is to publish this as soon as possible. There are a number of assumptions in there that are being reworked, and as soon as those are solved or sorted, it will come around.
The noble Lord did acknowledge that I have already answered a lot of the questions that he posed about the domestic workforce, the plans we have in place and the cross-departmental work with DHSC and DWP—so I will not rehash all that, because it would bore the House to tears. On his final question about the volunteer who flew to Rwanda, as I understand it, he qualifies for the five-year support package, as outlined in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of students. We expect to see a surge of applications in the summer as students tend to apply for their visa in advance of their course start date, most commonly in September. We have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the whole student situation; I am not quite sure when it is due to report back, but it will certainly do so in due course, and I am sure we will discuss its findings.
The noble Baroness also asked me to comment on a large number of operational matters. I am afraid I will not do that, for very obvious reasons, but I will recount some of the work that is being done with our international partners, particularly on the policing and law enforcement side. As noble Lords will be aware, to stop boats launching we signed the biggest ever deal with France; we have doubled the organised immigration crime funding for the National Crime Agency; and, as I mentioned again in the opening Statement, last year the French stopped 26,000 boats launching and we took down 82 gangs. Since the inception of the UK-France Joint Intelligence Cell, 24 organised crime groups have been dismantled, with 12 in 2023; and 280 people smugglers were arrested in 2023, including 94 pilots of small boats. The NCA also conducted the biggest ever international operation targeting networks suspected of using small boats for people smuggling, with 136 boats and 45 outboard engines seized. Over 150 small boats and engines have been seized as a result of the work of law enforcement in the UK.
On working with EU partners, illegal migration, as noble Lords will be aware, at the EU’s external border is growing dramatically. It is the highest it has been since the 2016 migration crisis. There were about 380,000 irregular crossings at the EU’s external border in 2023, showing a 17% increase from 2022 and indicating a consistent upward trend over the past three years. But the UK is committed to working with our European partners on these issues, both bilaterally and multilaterally, including at the EU level. I have mentioned FRONTEX —I could go on. There are an awful lot of interesting EU and broader European initiatives taking place, but I do not want to bore the House and I will not go through all the details now.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I cannot resist a buy one, get one free offer, so I want to come back in on the health and social care workforce, as we have this opportunity, and pick up one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made around transparency and the impact of the Government’s policies on the workforce. It may be that this is one of those happy occasions where the Government can eat their cake and have it, by both reducing immigration and filling the gaps in the social care workforce, but it may also be that the two are in tension. It is really important and I hope the Minister will at least commit to transparency around that, because I do think the public are grown-up enough to have a conversation around this. They do not just need to hear from the Government that it is all fine on both counts if it is not. So I hope we will get the data that we need to understand and make a grown-up choice. If there is a trade-off between reducing immigration and filling the social care workforce, we should have a public discussion about that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord; of course we should. We have to monitor those statistics to make sure that the sector has what it needs, but also that the system suits the domestic issues that we have been discussing as well.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister and your Lordships will be aware of the frequent denunciations of the Government’s policy on immigration by Irish politicians. Indeed, members of the Irish Government have denounced the Rwanda policy in very derogatory terms. Yet, having done so, they now seek to return to the UK those who say they are fleeing the UK because of the Rwanda policy. It is one of the many ironies of the situation: a Government who wanted an open border in all circumstances now want to send police to the border to ensure that there are controls there, and so on and so forth.
It is not lost on many people in Northern Ireland that Brit bashing becomes very fashionable as Irish politicians head into an election, but can the Minister assure me that Northern Ireland will not become a dumping ground for people returned from the Irish Republic? Although the Irish Government talk about 80% of people coming in through Northern Ireland, they have not produced any real evidence as to the actual figures. Can we be assured that Northern Ireland will not become a dumping ground and that there will not be any people border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he also outline what the understanding is, which the Irish Taoiseach has referred to as already being in existence between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, about the return of people coming into the Irish Republic from the UK illegally? Can he tell us what that understanding amounts to and whether it has any force of law?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I would also reflect on the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point relatively recently that there is no deterrent effect, but clearly that is not being represented in the facts on the ground.
I shall to an extent repeat what my honourable friend said in the other place, which is that
“this Government are resolutely opposed to a hard border on the island of Ireland”.
He said that he understood that
“the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has requested an urgent meeting with the Irish Government to seek assurances that there will be no adverse implications for the smooth operation of either the common travel area or the Good Friday agreement. That is an important meeting and he is right to seek it. I reiterate that we would welcome a returns agreement with the EU. We think it is right that we explore those opportunities and we will continue to pursue that”.
Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot comment. It would be wrong of me to comment on the stories about the Irish police and the border. Much as I would not comment on operational matters in this country, I certainly will not on those in another. Obviously, higher-level discussions are still ongoing, which would, I think, address the last part of the noble Lord’s question. I am sure there will be much more to be said about that in the coming days.