House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Forty projects have been selected to proceed to the development stage of the £25 million natural flood management programme. They include a broad range of locations, from Alnmouth to St Austell.
Justin Madders
I am working with residents in the Chase Way and Kendal Drive area of Great Sutton, alongside Environment Agency representatives and members of the local authority, to try to find a solution to the flooding problems that we have there. There are lots of different pots of money available at different times, and sometimes it is difficult to understand what the realistic chances are of our succeeding in getting the funding that we need to bridge the gap that we have at the moment to get the works done. Will it be possible for me to meet with either the Secretary of State or some of his team to talk about what realistic funding options we have for the area?
Steve Barclay
I thank the hon. Member for his engagement, and I will arrange a meeting with the relevant member of the team. The information is on gov.uk. Two projects near his constituency—the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Mersey Rivers Trust—are involved in the programme. I welcome his engagement. It is a good scheme, and I will ensure that he gets that meeting.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have been working with the Environment Agency to address a small flood problem on the River Gade in my constituency. The Environment Agency has been very helpful, and has met with me. In another part of my constituency, the River Ver has been flooded with sewage yet again. That is unacceptable, and the Environment Agency needs to take it seriously and take action against the water companies, rather than just saying, “We’ll work with you.” Action is what my constituents want.
Steve Barclay
I agree. That is why we are increasing fourfold the number of inspections, so that water companies are not marking their own homework. It is why we have the plan for water, introduced by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and significant additional investment. It is why we are taking tougher enforcement action, with the biggest ever criminal prosecution of water firms by the Environment Agency. It is also why we are taking action on things such as bonuses for companies that commit serious wrongdoing.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Food security is more important than ever, which is why we need to back British farmers to keep putting food on our tables, while protecting the environment. We are supporting farming with £2.4 billion of annual spending, an average boost of 10% for the sustainable farming incentive payment scheme, and new rules to ensure that farmers get a fair price for their products.
Sir Edward Leigh
Obviously farmers in low-lying areas of Lincolnshire are suffering from flooding, so any update on the support that they can be given would be very helpful. I have a specific question for the Secretary of State: will the Government update us on when they will announce the long-term funding solution that they promised for internal drainage boards, to address the pressure on local authorities through special levies?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right to focus on the importance of drainage boards, particularly in Lincolnshire. He knows that I have a particular constituency interest in the adjacent area. We have announced £65 million of funding, and the Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), will make further announcements on that shortly. We are looking more widely at the huge pressure on farming from the wet weather, particularly in areas such as Lincolnshire. There has been a 60% increase in rainfall—these have been our second wettest six months—and we are looking at a series of easements, particularly with regard to SFI, to ensure that farmers get their payments.
Jamie Stone
On behalf of my party, I too wish Phil, the Head Doorkeeper, a very happy birthday.
As the Government know, we grow the very finest seed potatoes in the far north of Scotland. They are particularly good because, relatively speaking, they are virus free. That is probably because of the northerly latitudes where they are grown. I happen to know that farmers in Europe are crying out to get hold of these seed potatoes. I ask the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that the potatoes go where they are needed and wanted.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member makes a valid point in terms of both the quality and the desirability of the products to which he refers. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is engaging actively with the EU on that specific point, and I am sure that he will update the hon. Member on it.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
One has only to look over the hedges of eastern England to agree with those who are predicting the worst harvest in living memory. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact that will have on the wider rural economy—in particular, the availability and price of straw, which is vital for the livestock sector, and important commodities such as potatoes, which are likely to be under great pressure in terms of supply and price this autumn?
Steve Barclay
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely on the money in terms of the concern regarding straw prices and lower harvests this autumn. We are engaging extensively with the sector. We have the Farm to Fork summit next week, chaired by the Prime Minister. That is an indication of how seriously we are taking this, and how much we are engaging with farmers and farm leaders.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is north-east week in the parliamentary canteens, and I hope all Members are taking the opportunity to enjoy great north-eastern produce. However, it is always north-east week in Grainger Market in Newcastle, which tries to champion local farmers and produce. What is the Secretary of State doing to support north-east farmers in the challenges they face to produce sustainable and affordable food for my constituents facing a cost of living crisis?
Steve Barclay
As the MP for North East Cambridgeshire, I feel I should extend north-east a little wider, given that we are a big food-producing area. To the hon. Lady’s specific point, the Minister for Farming is engaging with that issue and is travelling up to the north-east this evening as part of that engagement. Our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), is conducting a review of public sector food procurement, so that within our public sector we can better procure domestic produce. We also have a review of labelling so that we can more clearly label that fantastic produce from the north-east, to ensure that purchasers can buy it more easily.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
What are the Government doing to support farmers? Quite a few people are asking that. When one looks at the evidence of what is going on, the survey this week from the National Farmers Union into farmer confidence revealed that a staggering 65% of farmers are facing declining profits, or their business will not survive at all. Their prospects are worse than most Tory MPs, it suddenly seems. Why is it that farmers do so badly under the Conservatives?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman seems to have written that question before listening to the various examples that I have just given, but let me give him one. The most successful scheme the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has ever run is the current sustainable farming incentive scheme, with over 20,000 applications—more than any other scheme the Department has run. We have also been flexible in looking at how those schemes are delivered, given the challenges of the wet weather, and I will have more to say on that very shortly.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I listened carefully to that answer. While Brexit has been deeply damaging to farmers all across the United Kingdom, the actions taken by the Scottish Government mean that farmers in Scotland have far greater protection than those elsewhere on these islands. The SNP Government have guaranteed Scottish farmers the level of funding that was available pre-Brexit, unlike the Tories here in England or indeed the Labour party in Wales. That is the SNP standing up for farmers in words and deeds, unlike the Westminster parties. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise to farmers in England for his Government’s betrayal of them?
Steve Barclay
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the £2.4 billion commitment in our manifesto, which has been met in full.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This Government have put in place the most comprehensive regime ever to increase tree planting. Crucially, it is underpinned by legislation in the Environment Act 2021 and legally binding targets to increase our tree cover to 16.5%, and supported and backed up by our £675 million nature for climate fund. To date, 15 million trees have been planted under this Government, more trees than in any other decade.
Theresa Villiers
Trees must play a crucial role if we are to meet our commitments on nature recovery and net zero, and they are a tremendous source of happiness, well-being and landscape beauty. To meet the ambitious tree-planting goals that the Government have set, can they streamline the permissions process? Some of the red tape seems disproportionate and in need of regulatory reform.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she has done in her constituency to encourage tree planting, but she is right that the process needs to be fast and simple. We have taken that on board, and the Forestry Commission has recently introduced the woodland creation fast track, aiming to help to decide eligible woodland creation offers within just 12 weeks. To inform that scheme, it has developed a low-sensitivity map of the whole country to show people the best places to plant trees, or where they could think about planting trees, that are not on our best available agricultural land, which is important for food.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Led by the Woodland Trust, Tree Equity Score UK is a map-based application created to address disparities in urban tree distribution by identifying the areas in greatest need of investment in trees. What is the Department doing to promote increased tree cover in the parts of the country that need it most?
Rebecca Pow
I highlight again the low-sensitivity map, which points out exactly the same things as the map the hon. Gentleman refers to. We have many funds focused in particular on urban areas—some come from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities —to encourage urban tree planting, because it is so important for our health and wellbeing. We have a whole list of funds available, and I urge people to look at them and plant trees.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have to say that the Minister’s response suggests that the Government are completely in denial. The Office for Environmental Protection report exposed that the Government are way off target on their legally binding tree-planting target. There has been no trend of improvement on tree planting between 2018 and 2023. It would be bad enough if the problem were lack of money, but her Department is even failing to spend the money that it has been allocated. The environmental land management scheme is underspent by hundreds of millions, and the nature for climate fund that she spoke about has returned £77 million to the Treasury unspent. Is not it clear that, to get the tree cover that our country needs, we do not need a magic money tree; we need a Labour Government?
Rebecca Pow
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at his own tree-planting record. This Government have planted more trees than Labour did. We now have the plan in place so, if one looks at the graph, it is ramping up to hit those targets, and the training, skills, the forest apprenticeship and the framework are in place to reach our targets.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
We are investing approximately £1.3 billion of our £5.6 billion flood and coastal risk management investment programme in coastal projects. They will better protect over 100,000 properties, as well as critical infrastructure. The Environment Agency is also running the £36 million Government-funded coastal transition accelerator programme, which is funding coastal authorities so they can explore how to better support their communities.
Peter Aldous
The East Anglian coast has taken a real battering in recent months, and projects such as the Lowestoft flood defence scheme have been delayed. Our region is the most vulnerable to climate change, and is a lead player in delivering net zero for the UK, so will my hon. Friend consider a climate change risk assessment on which a regional coast defence strategy can then be prepared to properly protect homes, businesses, ports, farmland and infrastructure, as well as nurture our unique coastal environment?
Robbie Moore
There is no better champion than my hon. Friend on the challenge of coastal erosion. The Environment Agency is developing a new national flood risk assessment and an updated coastal erosion risk map to improve how we access flood risk information and communicate it to our communities. Those new datasets and maps will include the potential impact of climate change on flood risk and coastal erosion, and will help to inform how we better protect homes, businesses, farmland and infrastructure along our coastal communities.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
We learned from the Public Accounts Committee report that 500 flood defence projects have been cancelled, just like the one in Lowestoft. Whether the Minister chooses to use the words “cancelled,” “deferred,” “delayed” or “on a long list” makes no difference, because he is still refusing to tell us where those projects are. Why does he insist on holding residents in contempt by not telling them the fate of their local flood defences?
Robbie Moore
I and my officials have been reviewing the applications that have been put forward, and announcements will be coming very soon. The Government are investing £1.3 billion in flood defences, which is more than ever before, and we will continue to ensure that we are better protecting coastal communities.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
One hundred catchment-based approach partnerships are set out in the plan for water. The catchment-based approach is exactly the right one— I agree with the decision taken by my right hon. Friend on that—and is exactly the approach that we are taking. In the financial year, £15,000 is allocated to each catchment for that.
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The plan for water is starting to work in relation to community partnerships: next week, the East Suffolk Catchments Partnership will publish the plan for the River Deben. However, could I encourage my right hon. Friend to try to accelerate some of those partnerships, potentially by increasing the funding from £15,000 per partnership to £50,000, so that every single partnership can have a full-time employee to really drive this action forward?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. What we are doing is twofold. First, we are increasing funding: she will have seen that, yesterday, we announced an uplift of £11.5 million for local community-led projects to improve river catchments. Alongside that, we are looking at some major interventions in catchments, such as on the River Wye, where we allocated £35 million. We are taking a targeted approach to catchment-specific issues; in that catchment, the issue was chicken litter. The phosphate was going into the River Wye, so we are funding anaerobic digesters as a targeted way of taking a catchment approach.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Sewage has been discharged into our rivers for 3.6 million hours, including the River Thames in my constituency. Funding is only part of cleaning up this mess: the whole water sector is broken and needs to be put into special measures, so what is the Secretary of State’s long-term plan for tackling these issues, or is he content to keep following Labour’s lead and to take up our policies?
Steve Barclay
The first thing I would mention is the £4.5 billion of investment in the Thames tideway tunnel over the past eight years, which is going to significantly improve the water quality of the River Thames. Alongside that, we are stepping up inspections, with a fourfold increase in inspections; we are tackling bonuses in companies that are guilty of pollution; and we are taking much tougher enforcement action, with the biggest ever prosecution of water firms by the Environment Agency. A whole range of actions, coupled with the plan for water, is bringing additional investment into the sector and taking a catchment by catchment approach.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
We are driving down emissions and concentrations of the most harmful air pollutants, reducing their impact on public health and the environment. Through the Environment Act 2021, we introduced further legal targets for fine particulate matter. We have allocated £883 million to support local authorities, and air pollution has fallen significantly since 2010, with emissions of nitrogen oxide down by 48%, PM2.5 down by 24%, and sulphur dioxide down by 74%.
Jane Hunt
Given that incinerator capacity far outweighs waste, I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a short-term pause in the determination of applications for environmental permits for certain types of waste incineration facilities. Will the Minister please now extend that pause beyond its current official end date of 24 May and include existing incinerators that have applied to increase their capacity?
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. Our assessment of incineration capacity and needs is ongoing—I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that work or any of the next steps—but the Government are clear that proposed waste incineration facilities must not result in overcapacity or compromise our ambitions to minimise waste and improve recycling.
Munira Wilson
Last month, my local authority of Richmond upon Thames, along with other councils, was informed by DEFRA that its local air quality grant of £1 million—which had been awarded just two months earlier—was being rescinded. Given the number of areas in Twickenham breaching air quality standards, including areas close to schools, and with World Health Organisation targets becoming ever more stringent, how does the Minister think he is meeting his commitment to “expand the resources available to councils to improve air quality”?
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the great progress we are making in this area. We want to continue to make progress and support local authorities, but we did have concerns that the local air quality scheme was not delivering the most positive outcomes, and some of the bids that were coming forward were not aimed at improving air quality: we had bids for a robotic chatbot and for a kinetic art project. We want to focus on improving air quality and make sure we are funding local authorities to do just that.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, groomers must protect dogs under their control from harm and provide for their welfare needs. Where that Act is breached, offenders face imprisonment or an unlimited fine. As the legislation is already clear, we do not have any plans at the moment to implement a charter.
Duncan Baker
A constituent recently brought quite a distressing case to my office. A routine trip to the dog groomer’s turned into a disaster for her beloved pet. The dog was seriously injured due to the groomer using incorrect equipment, resulting in painful lacerations, multiple veterinary visits and permanent scarring. Unfortunately, that is not an isolated case. I am aware that, as the Minister says, the Animal Welfare Act provides some framework in relation to intentional harm, but I am amazed at the lack of regulation in the industry. Will the Minister make an assessment of what further legislative steps can be taken to regulate the dog grooming industry and ensure the safety of all dogs?
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this case, and obviously I sympathise with his constituent whose pet suffered that poor practice. The Government’s belief in the importance of animal welfare underpins the strong protections included in the Animal Welfare Act, and we will take steps to address widespread welfare issues where they arise.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
Officials are currently assessing planned residual waste treatment capacity, including incineration, against expected future residual waste arising in England, so that we can understand our future capacity needs following the implementation of key commitments in the resources and waste strategy. This capacity assessment will be published in due course.
James Wild
My North West Norfolk constituents welcome the moratorium on new waste incinerators and the review, but given that the incinerators already operating and those with consent provide enough capacity as we meet legally binding targets to halve residual waste, may I urge the Minister to make that temporary pause permanent so that we do not have to have an unnecessary and unwanted incinerator in Wisbech?
Sir Mark Spencer
DEFRA officials are currently scoping the need for a review of the role of waste incineration facilities, and I do not want to prejudge the conclusions of that exercise. The current pause period will end on 24 May, and the next steps will be announced no later than that date.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This Government remain absolutely committed to implementing our action plan for animal welfare. Since the action plan was published in 2021, we have made significant progress on a whole raft of animal welfare measures, such as introducing tougher sentences on animal cruelty and new laws on animal sentience, bringing forward legislation to ban live exports and keeping primates as pets, launching the animal health and welfare pathway, ensuring the microchipping of cats, and backing critical legislation to crack down on puppy smuggling, pet abduction and livestock worrying.
Henry Smith
I am grateful for that answer and, indeed, for all the animal welfare measures that this Government have introduced. Recently, pupils in Larch class at Three Bridges Primary School wrote to me very eloquently about their concern for the welfare and protection of endangered species. Can the Minister say a little more about what her Department is doing in that respect?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and indeed for his own work on animal welfare in this place, which has been impressive. I also thank the pupils of Larch class at Three Bridges Primary School. He can go back and tell them that this Government are absolutely committed to tackling this and to helping endangered species. We are actually the first Government to legislate to halt species decline in this country—as far as I know, no other country has done that anywhere in the world—and we have funds to save species. They might also like to hear about otters returning to our rivers, about saving red kites by protecting them from persecution, about saving the chalk hill blue butterfly and more.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
Nationally, fly-tipping on public land has fallen for the second year in a row, with enforcement actions up by 5%, but we all know the huge detrimental impact that fly-tipping can have on our communities. Fly-tipping fines have more than doubled, and we are now expecting local authorities to reinvest that income in enforcement and cleaning up our streets. We are going further with reforms on how waste carriers are regulated, with the introduction of digital waste tracking to help local authorities continue to crack down on waste crime.
Stephen Metcalfe
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What landowners and the public want is for this to stop. I realise that we have doubled the fines—we have massively increased them again—but may I suggest that all cases should be prosecuted and that prosecutions should be publicised widely, both to reassure victims and to deter perpetrators?
Robbie Moore
I could not agree more; promoting the convictions absolutely reassures victims that the Government and local authorities are taking tough action. I know that my hon. Friend has particular concerns about what is happening across the countryside, and DEFRA is funding the national rural crime unit to explore the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping and how that can be optimised, working with local authorities to deal with this crime.
Steve Tuckwell
Fly-tipping is a concern for many local residents across Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I would like to pay tribute to Mary in Yiewsley, Bernie in South Ruislip, Wendy in Cowley and Donna from Ruislip Gardens, who all act as community champions in reporting regular fly-tipping. I also need to mention the waste service team at Hillingdon Council, who work tirelessly in responding to regular cases of fly-tipping. However, all of this great work from residents and the council can only go so far, so what further funding and support is available specifically to target fly-tipping hotspots?
Robbie Moore
We have provided nearly £1.2 million to help local authorities combat fly-tipping, and our grants are focused on hotspots where they have funded around 200 CCTV cameras, plus other infrastructure including fencing, signage and mobile tips. A further £1 million is due to be released shortly, which will help further tackle these hotspots. I pay tribute to Mary, Wendy and all my hon. Friend’s constituents who are getting involved in helping him.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Since last updating the House, we have remained focused on delivering our plan to improve food security, on improving our water quality, and on leading the way, both at home and abroad, in protecting the environment. That is why we are introducing legislation to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic. It is why we have launched, as part of our catchment plan, the £35 million scheme on the River Wye, further to our announcement yesterday of £11.5 million in water company fines and penalties to be reinvested in water restoration schemes. We are working on Dartmoor to implement the very good recommendations set out in David Fursdon’s report, and we have seen over 20,000 farmers now sign up to the sustainable farming incentive, making it the most popular scheme ever. Alongside that, we are working at the G7, on bluetongue virus and in many other respects, but I can see, Mr Speaker, that you want me to speed up my reply.
Dr Coffey
The Environment Act 2021 was landmark legislation, and we of course need to think not only locally but globally. One element of that legislation was the introduction of forest risk commodity regulations. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend said what more we can do through our global supply chain measures.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right to focus on forest risk commodities: our flagship announcement at COP28 was that we were taking leading action on that. Many who have watched nature documentaries, for example on the orangutans, can see how important that is to particular species. I hope to table legislation on that later this month, but my right hon. Friend is right to focus on its importance.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage. This has to stop, so will the Government now back Labour’s plan and make water bosses personally criminally liable, so that if they keep illegally dumping sewage, they end up in the dock?
Steve Barclay
We already have the biggest ever prosecution by the Environment Agency, which is already live. We have also already banned bonuses for those companies guilty of serious pollution. We are quadrupling the number of inspections as part of that tougher enforcement scheme. We are also bringing record investment into the water industry. The hon. Gentleman never comments on the quality of water in Wales, but perhaps he will want to address that in his follow-up question.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is extremely well placed to speak about the quality of land and how it pays, given that he himself farms. We recognise that this is part of a wider debate about the clustering of solar sites on farm- land. We also recognise the importance of food security. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) can see the shift in focus to our environmental schemes that align with food security, because I believe that food security is instrumental to our national security, and that also affects our land use.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I am happy to look at the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to the UN, but we are clear about the importance of food production, food security and backing our farmers. It is left-wing councils around the country that are banning meat and acting contrary to the interests of many of our farmers.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
We are constantly working with those farmers facing the misery of a TB outbreak. I am aware of an outbreak in my hon. Friend’s constituency in Leicestershire, which is very painful for the individual farmers concerned. That is why we must throw everything we can at this terrible disease—every tool in the toolbox—to try to stop TB spreading across England.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
Steve Barclay
This Government are taking action on plastics. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a specific example: there has been a 93% reduction in the use of plastic bags as a result of measures that this Government have introduced. If he looks at the communiqué from the G7 in Turin, he will see that the Government were supporting action on plastics, building on the work announced from Ottawa last week.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Many communities in my constituency face the double whammy of coastal tidal flooding and fluvial river flooding. We have seen significant investment in places such as Par and St Blazey through the StARR project—St Austell Bay Resilient Regeneration—which the Minister has been to see. We have recently completed flood defences at Pentewan, but the village of Mawgan Porth remains vulnerable to both river and coastal flooding, and I cannot get any real progress in developing a scheme to reduce flood risk there. Will the Minister meet me to look at what we can do to protect Mawgan Porth?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
Having been to Cornwall to meet my hon. Friend and see the StARR project for myself, I am more than happy to meet to discuss what more we can do, because I know that he and his colleagues on the local council are championing this scheme as much as they can, and I am more than happy to help.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The sun may be shining today, but it has been a long, cold, wet spring for our farmers. Given the prediction that 17% of crops will be lost, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of farming businesses that will reluctantly stop producing food? How will he ensure that the farmers flood fund reaches all the farmers who desperately need it?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises an extremely valid point, and it is a shared concern across the House. Everyone can see the impact of the wet weather. That is why we are continually engaging with the sector. We had the farm to fork summit as part of that engagement, and we are looking at what easements can be granted in schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive, but also more widely. I will have more to say on that shortly.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Southport has seen millions of pounds of investment into drainage capacity for water, but unfortunately the villages of Tarleton, Hesketh Bank and Banks have not. These farming communities have been devastated by flooding. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries met me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) last year, which was appreciated by farmers, but more needs to be done. A report has been submitted to the Department. We want to set up an internal drainage board. What more can be done to make sure that is done at pace to help these communities?
Steve Barclay
As I touched on earlier, I am a huge supporter of the work of our internal drainage boards. They do a superb job, which is why the Minister for Water and Rural Growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), decided to allocate an additional £75 million. We will look constructively at what more can be done in more areas through the focus of drainage boards. My hon. Friend will have seen that we have already flexed our regulations in response to Storm Henk, for example, and we are looking at what further things we can do.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Brexit has been a disaster for farmers across the United Kingdom, but at least in Scotland they have the certainty of funding going out beyond 2027, unlike in Labour-run Wales and Tory-run England. What steps will the Government take to provide the same level of surety for English farmers that the SNP has delivered for Scotland’s farmers?
Steve Barclay
As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I think the suggestion that the way the SNP allocates its Barnett consequentials gives farmers funding certainty is a somewhat bold claim. The point with Brexit is that we can tailor our response to the needs of our farmers, whether through specific legislation such as that on gene editing to develop disease and drought-resistant crops, our procurement legislation so that we better leverage our public sector procurement and our labelling legislation so that we can support British producers, as well as through schemes such as the SFI, which is the most popular ever run by DEFRA, with more than 20,000 farmers now signed up.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
In the past, flooding from the Lady brook and Micker brook, which run through Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and Cheadle to join the River Mersey, has caused devastation to homes and families. Does my hon. Friend agree that joint working across the region is part of the solution? Will he continue his support for the upper Mersey catchment partnership working?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend has raised that specific case with me before. I am more than happy to meet her to have those conversations at speed, because I know just how valuable projects such as flood alleviation schemes are to her constituents in better protecting more homes.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
North West Leicestershire has benefited enormously from being the heart of the national forest, with millions of trees planted over the past 40 years, much of which are on degraded former colliery land. As desirable as tree planting is, that must be balanced against food security. Does the Minister agree that good agricultural land must be protected to produce good food?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I must first commend the national forest for all that it has achieved. Many farmers are involved in that forest, too. That is why the Forestry Commission’s map showing the best places for tree planting is so important, and that is not on what we call best available land, for which we have specified that the main priority is food production.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the Government. I recently visited CPS Thames and Chiltern to hear specifically about the work it is doing to combat stalking. I also heard how the domestic abuse joint justice plan will transform how we investigate this all-too-frequent crime.
Wera Hobhouse
Data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that despite an increase in the number of referrals from the police for domestic abuse, both charging rates and prosecutions have decreased in the last quarter. In Bath, the Southside project, Voices, and Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support all support those affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence, but we cannot rely on charities to do the heavy lifting. Does the Attorney General agree that if we want the public to have confidence in the system, increased reporting should lead to increased numbers of prosecutions?
The Attorney General
Yes. It is always difficult to talk with pleasure about increased numbers of prosecutions, because all the survivors of those acts have gone through a horrible event for a prosecution to take place, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it is generally a good sign that prosecution numbers are going up. I am pleased to say that they are going up in her area for adult rape cases. There is more to do on domestic abuse cases, which is why we are focusing specifically on the domestic abuse joint justice plan. The work of the charities in her region, which I should say are funded by but independent of Government—that is what survivors prefer—will really help us to ensure that those survivors get justice.
Chris Elmore
The Attorney General will know that the Online Safety Act 2023 was given Royal Assent at the end of last year and that, in that Act, there are various bits of legislation to protect women and girls in relation to cyber-flashing, deepfakes and revenge porn. Will she set out for the House how many prosecutions have taken place under that new, important piece of legislation that is trying to protect more women and girls from those other forms of violence?
The Attorney General
I am afraid that I do not have to hand specific figures for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency under that Act, but I am happy to get them for him. We are confident that it will be possible to bring prosecutions under the Act. These are important and distressing but relatively new crimes, and it is important that we continue to work with the police and the CPS to prosecute novel areas of criminal activity. It is really difficult for survivors of these crimes to deal with them.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Attorney General rightly refers to the work done in relation to domestic violence. The most serious offences of violence against women and girls are rape and serious sexual offences. As she will know, there are concerns that once victims have come forward, there are delays in their cases being heard, largely because of the difficulty in getting suitably experienced barristers to prosecute them. Does she accept that one of the main drivers of that is the fact that legal aid fees were increased for defence barristers, but prosecution fees have lagged behind? There is a gap of around £500 in the brief fee between prosecuting and defending. Does she agree that we must plug that gap urgently, to get suitable counsel prosecuting as well as defending those cases?
The Attorney General
The Chair of the Select Committee is tempting me to step on the firm territory of the Lord Chancellor, as he well knows. He also knows, because he and I have discussed this many times, that the Lord Chancellor and I speak several times a week about our concerns about the shortage of counsel in the criminal sphere in particular. However, I would say gently to my hon. and learned Friend that I do not think money is the only reason why it is not always attractive to prosecute RASSO case after RASSO case. They are draining cases to be involved in, and they are listed very tightly at the moment because of the pandemic backlogs, as he mentioned. That leads to tensions with listings and with the judiciary, which can make it very difficult to do this area of work relentlessly. I have nothing but praise for the barristers who are engaged in it.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
Close and collaborative work across the criminal justice system is key to securing justice for victims, holding offenders to account and keeping the public safe. The police and the CPS have invested heavily in new ways of working, including through the national operating model for rape prosecutions, with the result that the police and the CPS work more closely together at an earlier stage in prosecutions.
Mary Robinson
During a recent visit to Greater Manchester police’s divisional headquarters in Stockport I heard that there can be significant delays between sending a case to the CPS and receiving a charging decision back. To solve that, it was suggested that having CPS staff based inside the station would speed up the process and improve communication. What consideration has my hon. and learned Friend given to a CPS presence in police stations, and will he work with me and Stockport division to facilitate a trial?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this extremely pertinent point. She is right to emphasise the importance of early co-operation between the police and the CPS. At a visit last month to Charing Cross police station I considered precisely that point. There is a buddy system there, with CPS lawyers working with police officers, which is improving case file quality. We are actively exploring how to ensure closer early working with the CPS and the police, and I will look at Stockport with her.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The United Kingdom Government are going above and beyond to ensure that British arms are readily available in Israel’s arsenal to bomb Gaza. The Attorney General is refusing to give out the legal advice, based on the long- standing Law Officers’ convention, yet the circumstances for up to 1.6 million people are now between life and death. What steps is she taking to ensure that Britain is not complicit in the destruction of a nation and its people?
The Solicitor General
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Attorney General keeps all these matters under close review, and will ensure that any legal advice is properly obtained and acted upon.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
The Royal Albert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions. There are long-standing differences between the trustees of the Hall and the charity commissioners over governance matters. I really hope that the parties will work together to resolve their differences without expensive litigation and I stand absolutely ready to facilitate those discussions.
Mrs Hodgson
The Attorney General, in her—I must say excellent—recent letter on the matter, expressed her “disappointment” that the Royal Albert Hall Bill “is not more ambitious” and
“that the constitution of the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences gives rise to a potential conflict between the private interests of seat-holding trustees and the Corporation’s charitable objects.”
I totally agree. She has said that she will look at this issue but, unlike her predecessors, will she please also consider, if she needs to, referring the matter to the charity tribunal, so it can be settled once and for all? Tickets to attend one of our country’s most famous and treasured venues should not be turning up on notorious ticketing websites like Viagogo, and those who are receiving ill-gotten gains should not be running the charity.
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady takes a very close interest in these matters and is, I believe, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. I really commend her for her work in this important area. Many of us who are great supporters of the Albert Hall are concerned by ticket costs. I am hopeful, as I said, that the two parties can continue to work together. I want to avoid expensive litigation if that can be done. A previous Attorney General was asked permission to refer the matter to the first-tier tribunal. I have not been asked by the Charity Commission to do so. I am very hopeful that this matter can be resolved amicably and I am very happy to remain involved if that is helpful.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
The CPS takes the issue of keeping women and children safe online extremely seriously. I am pleased to report that the CPS has delivered the first conviction for cyber-flashing within weeks of the new offence becoming law. This is an important milestone for protecting women and girls online, and demonstrates how the Government have worked to put perpetrators behind bars.
Andrew Jones
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. In addition to the good work he is doing to help prevent online bullying, trolling and abuse, keeping safe online includes helping to prevent fraud. Will he detail how the Government, through the online fraud charter, are ensuring that tech companies help women and children?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the online fraud charter—a world first—which sits under the Online Safety Act 2023. Twelve of the biggest tech companies are working together to reduce fraud on their platforms. The signatories are agreeing to undertake certain measures within six months, such as blocking, reporting and take-downs, to ensure that the vulnerable—such as children being exploited as money mules—are protected online.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
Non-threatening peaceful protest is fundamental, but those rights are not absolute and they must be balanced with the rights and freedom of others. The CPS works closely with the police to ensure that those who commit offences during protests are brought to justice and our streets are kept safe. Indeed, just last month the CPS successfully prosecuted a protester under the Terrorism Act 2000 after he wore a Hamas headband to a pro-Palestine rally.
Dr Evans
The Minister rightly points out that there is a clear balance between democratic peaceful protest and the tactics used by the likes of Just Stop Oil to disrupt society. We have seen mass protests, mostly peaceful, on the London streets, but we did see damage, such as that to the Ministry of Defence, which is completely unacceptable. How do the new laws that we have passed in Parliament aid the prosecution of those who are not interested in peaceful protest?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this extremely pertinent and concerning point. The police already have a full suite of powers under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—as well as some relating to criminal damage, the offence to which he referred. To ensure that they act, the Government have, however, reinforced those powers under the Public Order Act 2023. The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with the police in, for instance, providing round-the-clock charging advice nationally. My hon. Friend is right: it is unacceptable that those who are taking part in legitimate democratic processes commit criminal damage, and it is also utterly unacceptable that, for example, Jewish people feel threatened. The Government expect the full powers available to the police to be used so that offenders can be prosecuted.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
As all Members know, the Law Officers’ convention means that I cannot disclose outside Government whether or not I have provided advice, or the specifics of such advice, but it is no secret that we continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected.
Mary Glindon
It is more than three months since the International Court of Justice issued its interim ruling on the Gaza conflict and set out steps that Israel must take in order to protect civilian life. The Netanyahu Government have, as yet, failed to comply with that ruling, but our Government have still not come out publicly and urged them to do so. Will the Attorney General take the opportunity today to call on Israel to take the steps ordered by the Court?
The Attorney General
This Government firmly respect the role and the independence of the ICJ. Its ruling, or order, called for the immediate release of the hostages and referred to the need to get more aid into Gaza, and that is exactly what the Government are also calling for.
Debbie Abrahams
The ICJ ruling also declared that there was a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide, and following the urgent question to the Deputy Foreign Secretary on Tuesday I cited United Nations international law relating to that. When there are concerns about a potential genocide taking place, those are the circumstances in which the sale of arms should be withdrawn. Can the Attorney General tell me, and my constituents—as this is a massive issue for thousands of people across the country—exactly when the Government will come out and recognise both international law and the risks that we take in breaching it?
The Attorney General
This Government believe very firmly in international law. On 9 April, the Foreign Secretary announced that our position on export licences was unchanged. We publish data on our export licensing decisions transparently and on a quarterly basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
We have heard questions about the International Court of Justice, but I want ask some questions about the International Criminal Court. Its chief prosecutor said last week that
“all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence”
the Court over its investigations of war crimes in Gaza must “cease immediately”.
He was forced to issue that demand after a letter signed by 12 United States senators warned the ICC:
“Target Israel and we will target you.”
That letter threatened sanctions not just against the ICC’s officials, but against its employees, associates and families.
Will the Attorney General join me in condemning those Republican senators for their outrageous actions? Will she also join the chief prosecutor in agreeing that anyone who threatens the ICC simply for doing its job is undermining the very impartiality and independence on which its international mandate depends?
The Attorney General
I thought that the ICC’s statement was worthy of note, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for bringing it to the House’s attention. In his statement, the independent prosecutor was also keen to point out that he welcomed active engagement by Governments and other parties on the work in which he is clearly engaged around the world to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and war crimes are not committed. He is a British prosecutor, and we in this Government are proud to work with him; we have been very proud to support him in his work in Ukraine, for example. There are ongoing investigations of what is going on in Israel and Gaza by more than one international court at present, and I think it is difficult to speculate on specific outcomes.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Attorney General will be aware of the Government’s grounds of defence in the ongoing case of Al-Haq v. the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in which the FCDO lawyers admitted that the
“inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance”
with international humanitarian law “poses significant policy risks”. What is the Attorney General’s assessment of that submission? Given the FCDO’s concerns about Israel’s compliance with IHL, what has she said to her Cabinet colleagues who are worried that the issuing of arms export licences could make the UK Government complicit in breaches of international humanitarian law and the arms trade treaty?
The Attorney General
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give my specific legal advice. I cannot share that with the House—it is for the Government alone—but I can say that the Foreign Secretary has reviewed the most recent advice from the IHL cell. That has informed his decision that there is not a clear risk that the items exported from the UK might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL. It leaves our position on export licences unchanged, but that position is kept under review.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
Last year, the Government published a new fraud strategy to combat fraud and economic crime, and the Corporate Transparency Act 2023 received Royal Assent. Last month, the Serious Fraud Office published its strategy for the next five years, which is focused on tech, intelligence gathering and enforcement. In fact, I am pleased to report to the House that on Friday the SFO secured the conviction of former investment manager David Kennedy for his part in a £100 million investment fraud, in which hundreds of people lost their savings.
Christine Jardine
Fraud is prevalent. In fact, it accounts for a third of all crimes committed in this country, and increasingly we are seeing online scams. Vulnerable people often get caught up in phishing schemes. Will the Government consider setting up an online crimes agency to clamp down specifically on online crimes, which will become more prevalent with the use of artificial intelligence?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a particularly pernicious crime. It often targets the vulnerable and, sadly, in an interconnected and digital world, it is likely to increase. We will look very closely at all such matters. A number of joint strategies are shared between agencies in any event, but I am certainly very happy to look at her suggestion.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
There were 36 failed personal protective equipment contracts during the pandemic, costing over £1 billion, but only one company, PPE Medpro, has been named. If the Government are serious about tackling fraud, why are they refusing to disclose the details of the other companies? How exactly were those contracts awarded, and can the Solicitor General update the House on how many prosecutions are pending?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member quite rightly raises a matter of particular concern to him, and indeed to the whole House. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs remains committed to covid-19 scheme compliance, and will continue to prioritise the most serious cases of abuse. Specifically on prevention and recoveries, up to 30 September 2023, HMRC had prevented the payment, or recovered the overpayment, of over £1.6 billion-worth of grants, made up of £430 million that was prevented from being paid out and over £1.2 billion that was recovered from overpayments. By 30 September 2023, HMRC had opened 51 criminal investigations into suspected fraud within the schemes, and made a total of 80 arrests.
Business of the House
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 13 May—Motion to approve the draft Procurement Regulations 2024, followed by motion to approve the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2024, followed by debate on a motion on the risk-based exclusion of Members of Parliament.
Tuesday 14 May—Motion to approve the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, followed by motion to approve the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, followed by general debate on War Graves Week.
Wednesday 15 May—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (day one).
Thursday 16 May—Debate on a motion on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report on women’s state pension age. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 17 May—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 May includes:
Monday 20 May—General debate. Subject to be confirmed.
Tuesday 21 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords message to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, followed by motion relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe- Manchester) Bill.
Lucy Powell
I was pleased to join the Leader of the House this week to launch a guide for Members and candidates, co-ordinated by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, on tackling conspiracy theories. Although the existence of conspiracy theories is nothing new, their reach, risk and repercussions are ever increasing. I encourage colleagues to read this important guide.
I welcome my new hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb). He is the first person from Blackpool to represent Blackpool in over 60 years. Having campaigned with him for years, I am now proud to call him my hon. Friend. I know that his former boss, and our good friend, Tony Lloyd would be thrilled and proud, too.
I also welcome two more Members to Labour, my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Our reach into previously undiscovered support is much broader and deeper than I ever imagined.
Talking of which, we understand that Conservative Members were all trooped over to No. 10 yesterday for a presentation and briefing on how they did not really lose the local elections after all. Perhaps we could have a debate on what the local election results tell us. It might help to inject a little bit of reality into their thinking, because they cannot cure something if they are in complete denial about it.
Which part of the message that voters expressed did their tin ears not hear this time? The third biggest swing since the second world war in a parliamentary by-election? Losing the York and North Yorkshire mayoral election in the Prime Minister’s own backyard? Labour taking Rushmoor, the home of the British Army? Or losing one of their more successful elected representatives, Andy Street, in the west midlands? If they cannot hear the message now, they will have a stark awakening at the general election.
We might have all had a small laugh when the former Prime Minister forgot his voter ID, yet another of his own rules that he thought did not apply to him, but there is a more serious point. We also saw veterans turned away from the polls because they could not use their veteran ID card. The Government have promised to add the card to the list of acceptable IDs. When will they do so?
I notice that there is nothing in the upcoming business on the Sentencing Bill, which is quite a surprise given that we learned this week, from a leaked email to probation and prison staff, that some prisoners will be freed up to 70 days early. Why are the Government consistently failing to bring back the Sentencing Bill so that these issues can be properly debated? And why are they failing to publish the figures on the number and nature of prisoners who will be released early? It is another part of their plan that is not working, is it not?
Despite serious and fast-moving developments in Israel and Gaza, the Government, again, did not come to the House to make a statement this week. It was only through your granting an urgent question, Mr Speaker, that Members could raise issues. We want an urgent ceasefire and the assault on Rafah stopped. After much delay, the Government rejected the Procedure Committee report on holding Lords Secretaries of State accountable, yet there is clearly widespread support across the House for its recommendations. Rather than the Government simply rejecting them, should the Leader of the House not seek the view of this House and table a motion on the accountability of the Foreign Secretary to this House as soon as possible? Whether on the middle east, China or Ukraine, there are hugely important matters to be raised.
I am pleased that the Leader of the House has finally brought forward the House of Commons Commission’s proposals on risk-based exclusions next week. Staff and those working in this place will be looking carefully at what we say on Monday in the interests of their safeguarding. As we heard last night, Members want proper time to debate these proposals and amendments. Has she considered those calls to extend the debate on the motion beyond two hours?
Despite the Prime Minister’s latest set of disastrous election results, he continues to insist that his plan is working. He has his fingers in his ears and is ploughing on as if everything is fine. It is as if there is no cost of living crisis or waiting lists are not sky high, and that voters just need to see more of the “real Rishi” and listen to him better. The reality is very different: people are crying out for change. But the only thing that does not seem ever to change is that every time he faces the electorate, he loses. That is not going to change, is it?
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me mark the fact that yesterday was VE Day; I know there will be many events going on across our constituencies during the week, giving us a chance to remember the debt we owe our forebears and also to think of those facing conflict today.
May I, too, welcome the hon. Lady’s new colleague, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), to his place and pay tribute to all candidates who took part in the important elections last week? I also thank her for helping me to launch the publication to which she referred. We commissioned it and I thank all the organisations that worked on it. It is important that we combat the rise of conspiracy theories, as that is part of restoring trust in what we do here and keeping trust in democracy. This publication will be a useful product, not just for Members, but for those who wish to come here too. I shall certainly make sure that the Lord Chancellor has heard what she says about the Sentencing Bill, although he will find her concern odd, given Labour’s voting record on our measures to introduce tougher sentences.
The hon. Lady mentioned her new colleagues, and I do hope the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is being made to feel very welcome in her new party. I am buoyed at the news that our odds of retaining Dover have slightly improved since yesterday lunch time—[Laughter.] It is true. But I think this is a personal tragedy for the hon. Member for Dover, as was what happened last week for the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). It has exposed a pattern of behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition, and it is a shame that we are not due an update to Peter Brookes’ “Nature Notes”, for the decorator crab is a species that covers its surface area with materials to disguise its true form, usually selecting sedentary creatures and seaweed. The Leader of the Opposition is the decorator crab of these Benches, desperate to show that he is not really leading the Labour party at all. He has channelled Margaret Thatcher; his deputy has praised Boris; he has expelled the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) with great fanfare, a man he was campaigning for to be Prime Minister only moments before; and his exterior shell is stuck over with St George’s flags, his Gunners season ticket and several programmes from the “Last Night of the Proms”. What next? Will it be a photo op with a bulldog? Will it be a lecture on how misunderstood Enoch Powell was? Should I ask the Whip on duty on the Front Bench if he has checked in recently with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)?
This is Operation Radish: the concerted effort to convince the British public that while the Labour party might look red on the outside, at its heart it really is not at all.
Even the defection from the Government Benches of one of Labour’s sternest critics cannot disguise the fact that Operation Radish is not going well. Not everyone has got the memo. The shadow Leader of the House talks about the important election results last week. Has she noticed that the first act of the new Mayor of the West Midlands was to turn his attention not to investment or infrastructure, but to Israel and Gaza? Ditto for the Mayors of West Yorkshire and London, with the latter also stating “equivalence” between the Head of State of Israel and a terrorist organisation.
The anti-nuke shadow Foreign Secretary is currently trying to walk back from calling a candidate for the presidency of the United States a neo-Nazi-sympathising KKK sociopath. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) sought to smear a decent candidate for Mayor of London as a white supremacist. Object to ULEZ and you are a child killer. If you are a woman advocating for your rights and dignity, you are a bigot. Want to strengthen our borders? You are a racist. If you have made money through hard work, you can’t possibly get Britain. That is today’s Labour party—just as it has always been.
The politics of the PLP is more the politics of the PLO and the JCR: more comfortable in university tented encampments and on picket lines than on the international stage; more interested in thought policing than actual policing. Labour has not changed—not its behaviour or its record. It is still high crime rates, high waiting lists, higher taxes, higher levels of poverty, less pay, less opportunity, less money for the NHS and less freedom. The British people can see what is going on. They like their radishes in salads, not in No. 10.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend indicates in provisional business for the week after next the remaining stages of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. She is familiar with early-day motion 711.
[That this House notes the First Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, HC121, on the problems with the current proposal and the restrictions faced by the Committee considering the hybrid Bill; respects the conclusions and recommendations on page 20; agrees with the list of matters related to the current proposals for a Holocaust Memorial and believes these need updated attention on deliverability from the Infrastructure Commission, from the National Audit Office on likely capital costs and recurrent annual costs, from the Chancellor on future funding control, and from the police and security services on maintaining unfettered public access for use of Victoria Tower Gardens while protecting the Memorial; asks His Majesty’s Government and the Holocaust Memorial Foundation agency to commission the views of the property consultants on a comparison of the current proposal by Sir David Adjaye in Victoria Tower Gardens with viable alternatives, to commission the full appraisal and to hold a public consultation on the selection of site; and further asks His Majesty’s Government to commit to having this or an amended proposal considered first by the local planning authority before considering whether to call in the application, noting that an open-minded observer could doubt another minister in the Levelling Up department should be asked to make an independent decision on an application by the Secretary of State.]
Will she arrange, at least seven days before the House returns to the Holocaust Memorial Bill, for there to be answers to the questions on recurrent costs, the total capital costs, the amount of money going to education and how much the cost of the project has risen in the last year?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I always do, I shall ensure that the Ministers in charge of the Bill have heard his specific requests and that the business managers take his asks into account.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
First, may I say on behalf of my party and in the spirit of congenial politics, led by our new First Minister and all our independence-minded Ministers, how delighted I am to see the Leader of the House still in her place after her party’s catastrophic results in England? They were not catastrophic enough to mobilise her PM for PM rebels, apparently. With her weekly ill-informed comments about Scotland, she is an extraordinary recruiting sergeant for independence and I am sure she will not disappoint today.
May I warmly welcome the launch by the Leader of the House this week of the guide to recognising conspiracy theories, such as those around 5G masts and 15-minute cities? It will be useful reading for some of the Members on her own Benches, and perhaps those on Labour’s increasingly busy right wing.
Given the Leader of the House’s personal interest, and what is supposed to be a central role of this House in protecting democracy and protecting us, will she be pressing for a wider debate on disinformation and the malign influence of secretive social media groups that perpetuate these damaging myths? I am thinking, for example, of the 36 so-called grassroots Facebook groups that I raised with the Prime Minister last week. They are forums full of vile racism, conspiracy theories and Islamophobic abuse of Sadiq Khan, all with links to Conservative party HQ staff, activists and even politicians. There is reason to suspect similar groups are quietly spreading their poison across the UK, including in Scotland. Does the Leader of the House agree that this needs to be investigated and brought to light, not laughed off as the Prime Minister did?
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House about the chaos of the Tory trade tax—the border checks that Brexit now requires—or, as former Tory Ministers have called it, “that act of self-harm on the UK”.
She swerved that with a boast about Brexit boosting UK financial services. Brexit is doing its damage to Edinburgh’s trade and talent in that sector, too, but services is a sector not affected by the serious issues that I raised of rotting food, crippling import charges, biosecurity risks, and delays and chaos at the ports. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House might be content to ignore the exporters and importers, the farmers and the fishers, whose businesses have suffered while she pretends that all is well on the Brexit front, but my party and I are not. So I ask again: when can we put the record straight—after last week’s twaddle—and have a debate in Government time on the ruinous impact of Brexit all across the economy?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I rejoice at the news that the Scottish Government no longer have a Minister for Independence? I was waiting this morning, Mr Speaker, to discover why that would be my fault, but the hon. Lady did not raise it. I wish to place on record my thanks to the former First Minister for his service. I know that there are many who would kick a man when he is down, but I am not one of them; he has done his best. Some say that he has been the worst SNP leader of all time. I say, no. Not only has he managed not to be arrested, but other SNP leaders make his record look pretty stellar —the new First Minister, for example. I also welcome him to his post.
In all seriousness, I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the education pamphlet on conspiracy theories. That is very important, as such theories are a real threat not just to democracy, but to the wellbeing of our constituents. They are a form of radicalisation, they are spreading and we must do everything we can to combat them.
The hon. Lady returns to the issue of the border operating model. As she would expect, I have paid great attention to what is actually going on. There remains little sign of disruption to border flows as a result of the changes, and volumes of trade appear to be at the levels expected. The IT systems are working as they should, and although, as I said last week, there have been some minor issues to resolve, there is nothing fundamental. I would be very happy to facilitate a deeper briefing for her or any of her colleagues on that matter if it would be of interest.
Our exports are now at record levels. We have become, as I have said, the fourth largest exporter overall, and we are the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Lady still does not seem to recognise the importance of that to her own constituency. I think that is something to celebrate, so I ask her to focus on the realities of what is going on and the opportunities that sit there for her constituents.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Today, we have had the excellent news that Harrow has been allocated Government funding for a new special educational needs school—something that has been campaigned for by the Conservative-run council, the officials and the teachers and parents of Harrow for a considerable length of time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating all those responsible on obtaining this. Can we have a debate in Government time on the brilliant work that our teachers and support staff do in special educational needs environments, in very challenging circumstances, with a lot of very challenging children?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he is doing to ensure that his constituents have the provision that they need. We have had a huge uplift in the general teaching staff; there are now 30,000 more teachers than when we came to office. Obviously, we have also been expanding special educational needs provision, but the need is growing and we are determined to keep pace with that. I think that a debate on the subject would be welcomed by many in the House, and I encourage him to apply for it in the usual way.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business debate for Thursday 16 May. If awarded time on 23 May, we would propose debates on UK arms exports to Israel and on potholes and highway maintenance. Those would be the two debates immediately before the Whitsun recess. Although all Chamber slots until the Whitsun recess are now pre-allocated, we would still welcome applications for Thursday debates in Westminster Hall, where the new time seems to be working quite well.
Can we have a debate in Government time on the vexed question of leasehold reform? In my constituency, developers are selling, or proposing to sell, packages of property freeholds to third-party companies and denying leaseholders themselves the chance to buy the freeholds of the properties that they live in. This is a really complex legal question, but an awful lot of leaseholders do not have the wherewithal to fight the property development companies and third-party companies buying such investment portfolios. Taylor Wimpey is a company with an interest in development in my constituency that is currently doing this. Can we have a debate in Government time to try to sort out this vexed question?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful advert for the Backbench Business Committee. He raises the very important matter of a particular aspect of leasehold. He will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is very focused on these issues. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give me specific examples, I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the detail of his case.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that Hastings, St Leonards and some surrounding villages suffered the consequences of a burst water main over the bank holiday weekend, depriving tens of thousands of residents and businesses of running water, and impacting Hastings’ famous and amazing Jack in the Green weekend and May day celebrations. While Southern Water acted promptly in finding and fixing the leak—and I thank the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for their huge support—can we have a debate about investing in water infrastructure, including building new reservoirs and maintaining existing infrastructure, and the impact of ageing infrastructure on water supply reliability?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the situation that affected my hon. Friend’s constituents so adversely. She will know that the infrastructure plan that is under way to modernise our waste water system and other water systems is the largest infrastructure project of its type in the world. She can follow the progress of that infrastructure plan on Water UK’s website. In particular, the plan on combating storm overflows is there for the general public to see. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has heard the particular case that she raises. She will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Yesterday was the 79th anniversary of VE Day, but the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance unit has never been recognised for its contribution to allied success. The Spitfire AA810 project is seeking a commemoration of the unit’s covert operations, and I am working with Southwark News to try to trace the four Southwark crew: Frederick James, William Fisher, Frederick Legon and Lesley Baker. Can we please have time to debate the ongoing need for formal recognition of the PRU and its courageous crews, especially given that half of them paid the ultimate sacrifice for our victory in world war two?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I am sure I do so on behalf of the whole House, given the response to his question. It is a very important thing that he is doing, and I will certainly use all the communication channels available to me to get the names of the people from the particular crew that he is trying to trace. It is right that we set the record straight on that. I was at the RAF Club earlier this week and got to meet some veterans from Bomber Command, particularly Colin Bell, the Mosquito pilot. We have to ensure that their legacy is understood for generations to come. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that anything that we can do to assist the hon. Gentleman in this important campaign shall be done.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am aware that the Leader of the House has been celebrating Portsmouth’s elevation to the championship this season. Last year in Ipswich we celebrated our promotion to the championship, and right now we are celebrating our back-to-back promotion to the premier league. For the first time in over 20 years, the Tractor Boys will be in the premier league, in the big time—arguably the single biggest boost to the town for over 20 years. Will she join me in congratulating Kieran McKenna, our exceptional manager, Mark Ashton, the chief executive of the club, and the whole team at Ipswich Town, who are passionate about not just the club but the town? I wish them all the best for the premier league next season. Who knows? Maybe Portsmouth will be there the year after.
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of us all, I congratulate Ipswich Town on this huge achievement. It is great for the fans, but it will also be great for the whole of Ipswich, because these achievements bring economic and social progress, and many other things. I think that both our clubs being promoted is an excuse for a pint —I will stand him one. Seriously, congratulations to everyone there. I hope that what he says about Portsmouth comes to pass.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Requiring voter ID is an additional burden that prevents people from voting and an unnecessary barrier to our democratic process, especially for those in poorer communities, ethnic minorities and young people. In last year’s local elections, 14,000 people were prevented from voting because they did not have the right ID at the time. Can we please have a ministerial statement on the impact of the requirement for voter ID in this year’s local and regional elections?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important question. She knows that this issue is reviewed on a regular basis, and I will make sure the Cabinet Office has heard what she has had. Even people who were against bringing in this particular check to protect people’s votes recognise that, because progress had been made in cracking down on areas where fraud had been particularly prevalent, such as postal voting, it was anticipated that there would be more fraud in other areas. That was one reason why the check was introduced, but I will make sure the Cabinet Office has heard what she has asked.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that I have raised with her before the discrimination against people who are visually impaired, who have to pay VAT on audiobooks when all books are zero rated. That discrimination cannot continue. We have had debates in Westminster Hall, but can we have a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on stopping this discrimination against visually impaired people?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend raises an important point and one that I have a great deal of sympathy for. I will make sure that the Chancellor has heard what he says, as the next questions to the Treasury team are not until much later on, and I think that he is doing a great deal of service by continuing his campaign.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on ministerial transparency? As the Leader of the House knows, ordinary MPs have to register with the House any hospitality that they receive from other parties within 28 days and in considerable detail. However, under the scheme that she still favours, Ministers have an exemption and they do not have to publish anything for several months or provide details at all. She said repeatedly in this House that she would, by last summer, ensure that there was a parallel system for Ministers so that they were not being treated differently from MPs. That still has not happened, so when will it happen?
Can the Leader of the House also explain the retrograde step we seem to have taken now? For instance, in the past we learned that the then Home Secretary registered through the Department that she had gone to a Bond premiere because Bond exercises “executive function”— I note the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) laughing, because he was the one who made that point—despite the fact that Bond is obviously a fictional character. Now, ministerial Departments are publishing the barest details. They do not even say what the tickets are for. Could the Leader of the House, for instance, explain to us what her lunch with Saints and Sinners was all about?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a stickler for detail, has not noticed that I have been reporting my returns monthly since the start of this year. They are not very exciting, but they are reported monthly, and I think other Departments are also able to do that. I did a speech at the Saints and Sinners Club for charity. Two charities benefited from it, and they are in my entry in the parliamentary Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I know he is keen on this issue and has campaigned on it for a long time. Of course, people do make mistakes—he himself was adrift two years in registering an overseas visit—but I am in favour of parity between ministerial reporting and Parliament—
Penny Mordaunt
I am, and I have been doing that since the start of this year—[Interruption.] I have.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May we have a debate on potholes? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] In my Chipping Barnet constituency, they seem to be worse than ever. After representations from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), London has been included in the Government’s major boost for potholes funding, so we need a debate to ensure that Barnet Council uses the £736,000 that it is receiving over two years effectively to tackle potholes and get them filled in.
Penny Mordaunt
If there is consensus in this House on any issue, it is that we cannot talk enough about potholes. An additional £8.3 billion has been allocated to councils for road improvements, which are of importance to our constituents. Critically, local authorities must account for what they are spending that money on, and since 15 March, they have had to report against the last tranche of funding. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard my right hon. Friend’s keenness to have a debate on the matter, and she will know how to apply for one.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Godiva Calling, a battle of the bands competition, is taking place at venues across Coventry in May and June. The competition will give some of Coventry and Warwickshire’s rising musical talents the opportunity to perform at the city’s now flagship music event, the Godiva Festival. Successful artists win the opportunity to perform their own music on the main stage over the festival weekend in July. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging local musicians to get involved in the competition, and will she arrange a debate on support for grassroots artists and on the importance of music and its ability to connect people and bring them together?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady makes a number of points that are supported by many Members in the Chamber. I join her in wishing everyone taking part in the battle of the bands a very good time, and congratulate them on making a success of what now seems a landmark event in the Coventry calendar. She will know how to apply for a debate, and I encourage her to raise the matter with the Secretary of State on 23 May.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
While the Prime Minister is today rightly meeting university vice-chancellors to warn them of their duty of care towards Jewish students, the National Union of Students has passed a so-called non-binding motion seeking to expel the Union of Jewish Students. To ban Jews because they are Jewish is pure Nazi ideology, and it gives the lie, frankly, to those who claim that their anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. This issue is a national crisis and it goes to the future of the rule of law in this country, and it is one of the myriad examples of the grotesque antisemitism that we are seeing in national life. Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling for cross-party consensus in supporting the Prime Minister in the work that he is rightly doing with universities and others to stop antisemitism on campus?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising this very important matter. I am pleased that the meeting between the Prime Minister, the Education Secretary and university vice-chancellors is going on today. We know from recent research that there are universities that do this really well—that treasure all their students and want an environment on campus in which people can learn and live their best life. Sadly, that is not happening on all campuses. The conduct by the NUS, and by particular students in it, is nothing short of grotesque, and I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would agree on that point. It is absolutely vital that we push back against the growing trend of increased antisemitism. I think that I speak for most, if not all, hon. Members when I say that we are supportive of any measures that will do that.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
I have always said that the Conservatives made a mistake in overlooking the right hon. Lady, and she has shown that again today. In that regard, can she help me with what I think is a narrow but important problem? Both Front-Bench teams support the continuation of arms sales to Israel, but the great majority of Back Benchers, even on the Conservative side, would like the opportunity to vote otherwise. That has been stopped—stymied—in the past. I hope that she can find a way for the House to freely express its attitude to this question. The Government, and the Labour Front Benchers, might get a rude awakening and a big surprise.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern, but I have not been overlooked—I am Leader of the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman has found the answer to his own question: he has just been able to freely express his view on this matter. As he knows, there are strict rules regarding our arms exports, which are also scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House. That is the Government’s policy, and if those lines are breached and there is evidence of that, that policy will kick in.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Wessex Fields is a large chunk of council-owned land in north Bournemouth. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is rushing through the sale of that nine acres of real estate for £4 million less than its independent evaluation, claiming it is storage rather than employment land. This is the same council that is cutting our famous annual air festival and selling off car parks, public paddling pools and plant nurseries, all because—it claims—there is no money, yet here it is throwing away £4 million of local taxpayers’ money. I have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up and to the council’s scrutiny committee calling for that decision to be investigated, but Bournemouth deserves better, so can we please have a debate on poor council decision making?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear about those decisions in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am sure many Members of the House who have visited the air show previously and are very fond of Bournemouth as a consequence will also be disappointed to hear about the choices his council is making. He has done the right thing in asking the Secretary of State and the council’s scrutiny committee to look at this issue; I will also make sure that the Secretary of State understands its urgency, and I hope we can get some common sense.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In February, after much waiting, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up announced that regulations would be put in place to curb the growth of short-term holiday lets. The summer season is already here; the Secretary of State said that those regulations would be in place before the summer, so when are we going to see the necessary regulation to stop the growth in short-term holiday lets, and to stop landlords coming in and purchasing properties that should be used for family housing in places such as York?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady has raised this issue before. As she will know, a careful balance is needed between enabling economic regeneration and ensuring that people can have a good, secure home and get on the property ladder. I will make sure again that the Secretary of State has heard the her request, and will ask him to update her.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Can we have a debate about flood resilience and sport? I am fortunate to have in my constituency one of the most beautiful and iconic cricket grounds in England: New Road, the home of Worcestershire county cricket club. Previously, when that ground has been flooded, I have been able to reassure colleagues that it will reopen through the fantastic work of the ground staff. This year, however, it has been flooded eight times, and with the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change, the board of Worcestershire county cricket club has said that it is going to have to explore other locations and opportunities. Can the Leader of the House therefore support me in urging Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to work together, in order to look at all options to support the future of Worcestershire county cricket club and protect New Road?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is fighting for a very good cause indeed. I will, of course, do as he asks and write to Secretaries of State at both DCMS and DEFRA, asking them to co-operate and assist my hon. Friend in this very important campaign.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
This afternoon, I will be attending the Art Fund 2019 museum of the year, St Fagans in my constituency, to celebrate the opening of the newest building in its outdoor offer, the recreation of the Vulcan pub from Cardiff city centre. While I am uneasy about attending a pub in a museum when I used to drink in it many years ago—it makes me feel rather old—it is a fantastic addition to that wonderful museum’s offer. It will be set up like a pub from 1913, although unfortunately not with 1913 prices over the bar. Can we have a debate on the wonderful contribution that our museums make to our life in this country, and also to celebrate free entry to such museums—which was, of course, brought in by the Labour Government?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very jealous of the hon. Gentleman’s planned visit and congratulate the museum on winning museum of the year. I would encourage him to celebrate this with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 23 May.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I must say that I have some good news from Mid Devon District Council. My right hon. Friend will no doubt fall off her chair—so long as she does not defect. The main thing is that it has been forced to release the information on 3 Rivers Development—I have mentioned it in this place a couple of times—because it has been acting irresponsibly. If he had a shred of decency, the leader of the council would now resign. This is a scandal worth millions. The chairman of the scrutiny committee has done a runner—literally done a runner—and refused to take part. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, local government is not getting it right. We need time in this place to debate incompetence, obfuscation and, in some cases, downright dishonesty by councillors using their position to bamboozle the people who put them there, who are the voters who vote for us and them.
Penny Mordaunt
First, I reassure my hon. Friend that I am not about to defect to the Opposition. They would not be interested in me—I am too left-wing. However, as I do every week, I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up has heard about the ongoing saga in my hon. Friend’s constituency and his concern about the performance of the council.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am sure the Leader of the House, as a former Minister for disabled people, is as concerned as I am that it is now two years since the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 notice against the Government with regard to their discrimination against disabled people. That was followed by the report from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities investigating a second set of breaches of the convention by this Government, which was published a couple of weeks ago. Can we have a debate in Government time about why there has been this discrimination by the Government against disabled people and what the Government are going to do about it?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly make sure that both the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work at the Department for Work and Pensions have heard that the hon. Lady is keen for an update on this matter. I have to say that, in my experience, the criticism of this country by many organisations, particularly international ones including people from nations that provide very little support for disabled people, is quite wrong. I could point to many aspects of the work that has been done in many Departments to support disabled people in every walk of life. This is a matter that should concern everyone because most disability is acquired, whether from the built environment or in relation to work. We have enabled 1 million people with a disability to get into work and have the dignity of a pay packet because of our change of approach on welfare and support. There are many other examples and I think we have a good record over many years. However, there is always more to do and I will make sure that both Ministers have heard the hon. Lady.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Twelve months ago, the then Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), told the House that the Secretary of State was considering the recommendations of the final report of the regulation of property agents working group, published in July 2019. Can we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to advise what progress has been made on creating an independent body to regulate managing agents, so that leaseholders and indeed managing agents might have confidence in a single, fair and transparent system that will protect not only leaseholders, but managing agents alike?
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure that my hon. Friend has an update from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. He will know that we are committed to raising professionalism among property agents. They must already belong to a redress scheme, and both the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill and Renters (Reform) Bill will help to drive up overall standards, but I shall make sure that the Department has heard what he said.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Yesterday, only weeks after admitting to the serious side effects from its product, AstraZeneca withdrew its covid-19 vaccine worldwide. Like millions in the UK and over 700 million people worldwide, I took the AstraZeneca jab, based on the Government’s assurance that it was “safe and effective”, and I suffered side effects. I know there is very little appetite in this Chamber to discuss these matters, but I assure the House that there is huge and growing concern among the public about a medical intervention that this House encouraged, coerced and, in some cases, mandated people to inject into their bodies. So can we have a statement from the Health Minister on the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine and why the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency failed to act to protect the public interest, or is it that AstraZeneca withdrew its own product because it was far too safe and effective?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to see the hon. Gentleman speak like that in this Chamber, especially as three speakers on the Front Bench have raised the issue of conspiracy theories and our combined efforts to push back on them. The vaccine he refers to saved, according to many independent estimates, over 6.5 million lives in the first year of use alone and over 3 billion doses of it were supplied globally. He will know that, as with many other medical products, we do not keep particular vaccines in use permanently. Disease and therapies change and vaccines need to be updated, and he knows it is very clear that this has been withdrawn for commercial reasons. It is no longer needed and there are two particular vaccines that are used now in our NHS with regard to covid.
The hon. Gentleman has had several debates on this matter and on excess deaths. Of course people suffering ill effects from taking vaccines is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and their needs must be served, but that is quite another thing from promoting false information about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. That vaccine and the people behind it saved millions of lives. There is a chapter in the publication we have spoken about that covers this precise point. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get a copy and read it, to think seriously when he comes to the House, as he does every week, and promotes conspiracy theories and to really think about the consequences of what he is doing.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I am delighted that Darlington has secured funding for a new 48-place special educational needs school but there is more to do, with excessively long waits for child and adolescent mental health service assessments putting stresses on families. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to see those waits reduced, and can we have a debate on the issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all he is doing to campaign on this very important issue. He knows that we have made increasing special educational needs provision a priority. We have opened 108 special free schools and 51 new alternative provision free schools, but this is a growing need and we want to ensure that every child and young person can have access to the support they need to thrive. He knows how to apply for a debate, and I shall make sure the Secretary of State for Education has heard about his continuing campaign and his interest in doing more for his constituents.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Today, we are hosting an event called the National Women in Agriculture Awards, celebrating women in farming. It is an absolutely fantastic opportunity for women across Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England to be celebrated. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the hard work and the backbone of British farming—the women?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her involvement in that event, and of course send our thanks and good wishes to everyone attending, but also to everyone across the four nations of the UK who is providing this fundamental service—food production— to our population, and caring for the land and the environment. She is absolutely right: in this sector, as in most, it is women who deserve the greatest praise.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The UK shared prosperity fund is an important part of this Government’s levelling-up agenda. It has been very important to us in Cornwall, where it has supported over 100 businesses and community projects, including around £1 million to improve flood resilience at Mevagissey harbour and £350,000 to promote all-year-round tourism in Newquay. The current round of funding expires next year and people in Cornwall are eager to know what the future holds. I know the precise details and the amount will be part of the spending review, but could we have a statement from the Government on how they see the future of the shared prosperity fund?
Penny Mordaunt
The UK shared prosperity fund, which is worth £2.6 billion, has played a major part in restoring pride in places and helping people to access opportunity, particularly in places of need such as ex-industrial areas, deprived towns and rural coastal communities. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has been doing in his local area. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard that he is keen to have an update on this matter, and my hon. Friend will know how to apply for a debate.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Derriford Hospital in Plymouth has declared five critical incidents already this year. Despite the heroic work of dedicated NHS staff, it has some of the worst performance on accident and emergency and ambulance handover delays in the country. With social care, primary care and NHS dentistry in a dire state in Plymouth, too, can we have a debate on health in Plymouth and what can be done to support those brilliant NHS staff in rescuing services at Derriford Hospital?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the particular performance of the hon. Gentleman’s local trust. He will know that we are putting a huge amount of resource into ensuring that we can catch up, particularly since the pandemic. We have 2 million more operations, more than 160 diagnostic centres have been set up and we have the dental recovery plan. The funding is provided by the UK Government, but it will be up to local commissioners how they use those services. The next questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care are on 4 June, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise any specific concerns he has with her then.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome and support the Government ensuring that the UK is in the vanguard of global decarbonisation of aviation. I also welcome and support the sustainable aviation fuels mandate coming in early next year. However, the revenue support mechanism is not planned to be introduced until later in 2026. Can we have consideration of a statement on bringing that forward to ensure that there is certainty in the UK sustainable aviation market, so that domestic manufacture of the fuel ensures that we decarbonise our aviation and are at the forefront of green technology?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We can be proud that the UK is world-leading in this regard—not just our incredible science and business community, but the RAF. That is its second mention in this business questions session. It has been a pioneer on sustainable aviation fuel. The next questions to the Secretary of State for Transport are on 16 May. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise this matter with him there.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
This week marks World Asthma Day, and new analysis from Asthma + Lung UK shows that 12,000 people have died from the condition since the national review of asthma deaths was published in 2014. In fact, asthma deaths have increased by almost 25% in the past 10 years, despite there being major preventable factors in two thirds of those cases. Please can we have a statement from a Health Minister outlining how the Government plan to tackle this crisis and finally act on the recommendations of the national review of asthma deaths?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important issue, which will be of direct concern to many across the country. As I have said, the next questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care are on 4 June. The hon. Lady may wish to raise the issue directly with her then. In the meantime, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware of the ongoing speculation that Royal Mail and its parent company International Distributions Services are subject to a takeover by EP Group. I know she will agree that the Royal Mail plays an important economic, social and cultural role in this country. As well as delivering a universal service obligation to all parts of the UK, Royal Mail is an iconic British brand. It carries His Majesty’s insignia and plays a vital role in all UK elections.
I know how much my constituents value regular and timely postal services. May we have a debate in Government time on what legal safeguards are available to ensure that the important functions of Royal Mail are delivered for all our constituents, and that they continue beyond the obligations in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 in the event that the company is taken over and headquartered outside the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Those services are fundamental, not least because many healthcare services in particular rely on them—other hon. Members have raised concerns about that. Given that the next questions to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade are not until 13 June, I will ensure that she has heard his concerns.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
On behalf of my constituent Glen Coleman, and the many other victims who were discriminated against and dishonourably discharged from the armed services for being gay, can the Leader of the House give any reassurance that the LGBT veterans independent review carried out by Lord Etherton will be brought forward for debate in the near future, or at least before the general election?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. The review and the apology given by the Prime Minister on behalf of the nation is an incredibly important landmark. There are still outstanding issues with regard to those in services that are not public facing —intelligence agencies and so forth. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard what he has said. I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Leigh Lionesses are a newly founded football club aimed at providing a nurturing environment for girls to thrive in football, but according to leading member Gary Jacobs, whose daughter is a brilliant Leigh Lioness, their journey has been marred by a real struggle to find consistent playing venues and suitable facilities because so often they are already booked up by boys’ football clubs. May we have a debate in Government time on the number of pitches, all-weather pitches and facilities available for women’s football up and down the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I can feel a bid to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport coming up. My hon. Friend, who is a formidable campaigner, will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State are on 23 May, when I encourage her to raise that directly. The Secretary of State has taken a particular interest in community sport and has given considerable grant funding to local authorities to increase the number of pitches, and in particular those that can be used all year round. My office stands ready to assist my hon. Friend in ensuring that everyone in her constituency—especially the girls’ teams—has somewhere they can play this sport.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Yesterday, TSB announced 36 bank closures, including the closure of the branch on Bedlington high street in my constituency. That will be the last bank closing its doors, making Bedlington basically a banking desert. I understand that lots of people now prefer telephone banking or internet banking, but many people—mainly vulnerable people—depend on high street banks. This closure will have a huge impact on Bedlington. Will the Leader of the House join me in demanding that TSB reviews its decision at Bedlington? Can we have a debate in the House to discuss the impact of these actions on towns such as Bedlington?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is in everyone’s interests, including banks’ interests, that constituents can access those services. Even if a particular bricks and mortar building has to close down, there are ways of retaining those vital services, including cash banking for businesses. As he rightly said, access to banking services, particularly for vulnerable and older people, needs to be continued in our communities. I will ensure that the relevant Department gives him advice about what he can do to help facilitate that. Of course, the bank has an obligation to ensure that its customers can continue to use its services.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I have stopped the large number of so-called asylum seekers from attending my surgeries, and I have instructed my office not to deal with asylum cases, for two reasons: as MPs we have zero authority, mandate or influence over Home Office decisions; and I want to dedicate my very limited resources to putting Dudley people first. Can we have a debate on the pressure that asylum seekers are putting on our nation’s resources and local services?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point, which I could generalise on. Our approach to this issue has been to recognise that we have finite resources, and we want to direct them in the most efficient and effective way possible. That is why we must control our borders, which is what the British people want. They want the Government to control access for foreign nationals to the UK. As well as border control, we have been reforming processes at the Home Office. He will know that we have speeded up looking at cases by close to 300%, and we are cracking through that backlog. We will get on top of it. The public can see that progress is being made, including on getting people out of hotels. We are making good progress and we need to continue, to ensure that the systems we have in place are not piling pressure on local services, whether education, healthcare or the services that the hon. Gentleman offers in his office. That is very well understood, and I hope he understands that the Government are doing that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Up and down the country, hundreds of thousands of young people are about to take their summer exams. Unfortunately, there will not be a level playing field, because thousands of pupils—including hundreds in my constituency—have been impacted significantly by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and asbestos, having lost several months of face-to-face teaching. The Department for Education and the exam boards do not seem interested in providing an uplift to those young people to ensure that they get fair examinations. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of RAAC and asbestos on the learning and opportunity of young people, and on the need for fair and equal examinations this summer?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that the Secretary of State for Education, in legendary fashion, has been doing something about this matter. If he will furnish me with the details of the schools that he is particularly concerned about, I will ensure that the Department gets that message and responds to his office, so that his constituents do not face disruption this summer when doing their exams.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On behalf of Hinckley and Bosworth, I congratulate the returning Conservative police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire, Rupert Matthews. His re-election was in no small part thanks to his introduction of a rural crime team, which has recovered £1.3 million worth of stolen goods since its introduction and reduced rural crime by 24%, according to the latest newsletter. Will my right hon. Friend thank the returning PCC, the Leicestershire police force and, most importantly, the offices of the rural crime team for all they do to reduce crime in the likes of Market Bosworth and the surrounding villages?
Penny Mordaunt
I happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rupert Matthews on his return to office, and I thank him for the leadership he has shown in reducing crime in his local area, as well as the police force on the frontline. In certain parts of the country the police often get a hard time from us in this place, but they do tremendous work. On the same resource since 2010, crime has been halved in this country, leaving aside online fraud and particular hotspots in the west midlands and London. That is a tremendous achievement, and it is thanks to the accountability and direct democracy of police and crime commissioners but also, most of all, the hard work, efforts and effectiveness of our police officers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind Members that it is important to ask the Leader of the House about business connected with the House, as well as congratulating various people.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My constituent Janice lost her brother in 2020 in a tragic incident caused by a dangerous driver. She has since campaigned tirelessly for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving to receive lifetime driving bans. As things stand, I understand that the Government are looking at the issue, but they have been doing so for some time. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister setting out the Government’s intentions, and whether they will seek to ensure that those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving cannot again get behind the wheel?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing Janice’s work on this important issue to the attention of the House, and I thank her for what she is doing in the wake of an appalling tragedy to ensure that no one else has to endure what she has been through. I will ensure that both the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport have heard the request for an update on this important matter.
SME Finance
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. I emphasise that we want brief questions, not speeches, and that those questions should be directed to the Committee Chair, not the relevant Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this wonderful opportunity to present the report that the Treasury Committee published yesterday on access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses.
As every Member will know, small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of the UK economy. All of us in our constituencies will be aware of amazing small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, 99% of the businesses in this country are small and medium-sized, which gives us an idea of how important they are. Well over half of our constituents who are employed work for SMEs. Access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, which the Committee has been looking at, is therefore a really important issue. I want to highlight some of the points raised in our report. This is an opportunity not only for Members to hear those points but, I hope, for the Minister to take them on board.
No one can deny that, with the pandemic and the energy price crisis, the past five years have been an absolutely torrid time for everyone. SMEs have often been at the forefront and have experienced the brunt of those crises, but without the huge resources that larger businesses have to be able to cope. Through those crises, the Government took extraordinary steps to provide support in terms of access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, but we are now in a different environment. In fact, all the evidence and data published this week show that small and medium-sized businesses are beginning to feel much greater confidence—we are seeing some real improvement there. Nevertheless, issues remain from that difficult time and also more structurally following financial regulation measures set up since the banking crash in 2008.
I want to flag up a few of the points that we made in our report. The first concerns the Business Banking Resolution Service, which was set up after the banking crisis and was designed to provide access to resolution, mediation and outcomes for businesses that were too large to access the Financial Ombudsman Service but had nevertheless been treated pretty badly during the financial crisis. I think it fair to say that the Committee formed the view that the Business Banking Resolution Service had not been a success. It is owned and run by the banks, which raises questions about conflicts of interests in the first place, or certainly the perception of a conflict of interests. Moreover, it has spent about £40 million during its lifetime and has awarded only £2 million worth of compensation, because it drew the access criteria so tightly that very few businesses were able to qualify. As a result, there were very unsatisfactory outcomes for businesses that used the resolution service because they could not access the Financial Ombudsman Service, and the Committee agrees that it should close as planned. We look to the Government to come up with a consultation on a new mechanism by the end of this calendar year.
Secondly, there is a Government initiative called the British Business Bank. The Committee thought highly of what it heard in evidence from BBB, and welcomed the announcement in the Budget that the covid recovery loan scheme had been rebranded as the growth guarantee scheme. We expect that to be an important source of credit to help small businesses to grow when they would otherwise have struggled. However, we noted that very few small businesses even knew about this organisation, and we have tried to publicise it through the report. We urge the Government to assess the effectiveness of BBB every year, because we think it has an important role to play and it is pretty successful where it is known about, but it is not widely known about.
Thirdly, we were greatly concerned by what we heard in the evidence about something that sounds very niche but is actually very important. It is known in the trade as Basel 3.1. After the financial crisis a committee set up in Basel, the Swiss city where the central bank of central banks is located, came up with some proposals which were then known as Basel III. The Prudential Regulation Authority—part of the alphabet soup of financial regulation that was set up after the crash—is currently consulting on a tightening of the criteria for lending to small and medium-sized businesses. At present there is a discount factor relating to the risk to banks’ balance sheets from lending to such businesses, but the PRA wants to tighten that arrangement considerably.
The Committee is concerned because, according to the evidence that we heard, such a move could withdraw about £44 billion of lending to businesses from the UK economy. We therefore urge the PRA not to proceed, particularly because we also heard evidence that the proposal would not be implemented in the United States or in the European Union. In fact, for many years when we were members of the EU we did not implement what the Basel Committee was recommending. The committee then issued a statement expressing concern and saying that we were in violation of its recommendations. That shows that it is perfectly possible not to implement them: all you will get is a reprimand. We have therefore concluded that the support factor for small and medium-sized businesses should not be changed at this stage in the economic cycle.
A fourth issue that came up in the evidence we received, and which has really shocked the Committee, is the extent to which banks are simply closing the bank accounts of businesses across the country. I expect that every Member of this House will have had a piece of casework that involved one of the businesses in their constituency being told that its bank account was closing, with absolutely no reason or notice given by the bank. We asked the banks about this issue, and they confessed that they had closed over 140,000 business bank accounts during the course of 2023. Obviously, there can be perfectly good reasons for doing that: there will be businesses that do not reply to any questions from their banks, and there will be businesses that are suspected of money laundering or that have actually been found to have done so. However, we also found that banks can use phrases such as “risk appetite” or “reputational risk” to close the bank accounts of organisations and businesses that we would think are a perfectly fair part of the fabric of this country. For example, amusement arcades and pawnbrokers can struggle to get access to a bank account.
Perhaps most alarmingly, we heard in one of our evidence sessions with banks that even someone in the defence sector can have their bank account closed or struggle to open one. This is often to do with the share- holders of banks wanting to observe the environmental, social and governance rules. We all think that such rules are good, but they can lead to some unintended and inadvertent consequences, whereby defence companies are effectively debanked and cannot get access to a bank account in this country. I am sure that all Members present will recognise that the defence of this country is a foundation for ESG compliance, and should not, therefore, lead to people struggling to get a bank account. We urgently request that the Treasury introduce the legislation on debanking that it has promised, and we look forward to that happening before the end of July. It is something that we are keen to see.
I see that my 10 minutes are up. I thank everyone for their attention, and I hope my statement has provided food for thought for Members across the House.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am on the Treasury Committee, and I commend my hon. Friend for her great chairmanship. She has already mentioned the need for transparency, and I am delighted that the Treasury will bring that forward, but I was particularly struck by how difficult it is to open accounts. Even for farmers, it can take multiple months. Most importantly of all, the PRA’s approach is going to choke the growth of many small businesses, and we need our small businesses to become much bigger for the prosperity of our country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the PRA really needs to understand the importance of this issue to ensure that the entire country prospers, which will only happen if small businesses prosper?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Inflation is the worst tax on our economy and important steps are being taken by the independent Bank of England to raise interest rates, to make sure that inflation gets back to its target zone. That all seems to be on track. Monetary policy has been tightened already, and we see that in the environment in which our small and medium-sized businesses are working. They have been squeezed by higher interest rates, and the evidence we received showed that the acceptance rate for credit has fallen from 80% to 50%, so it does not feel like the right time to be tightening access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses through a change in regulations. It particularly does not feel like the right time to be doing so unilaterally, when the EU and the US are not following the Basel 3.1 rules.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I am also a member of the Treasury Committee, and I thank the Chair for all her hard work on this report.
On the overall question of the confidence of SMEs in their ability to access finance, the report raises some interesting figures. There was a £95 billion finance gap in large high street bank lending to SMEs between 2015 and 2022, alongside the softer pressures of SMEs fearing rejection in lending and the lack of trust in the lenders themselves. Will the Chair please provide an assessment of how she feels that appetite looks across the rest of this year and beyond? What tools are at our disposal to deal with the inherent caution in the SME lending market?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank my excellent colleague for his question. He is absolutely right that the inquiry received evidence on what I would describe as financial apathy. Small businesses sometimes choose not to borrow, choose not to grow, In fact, only 5% of small businesses that seek lending would even consider shopping around to find another provider if they were rejected by their main bank.
There is work to do to encourage and guide SMEs, and the British Business Bank has a very important role. It is not well enough known, which is probably holding back the growth of many excellent small businesses. I am so proud that our Committee has been able to champion this.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Treasury Committee for making this statement today. She will be aware that one of the main reasons why a lot of small businesses have to rely on bank funding is because bigger businesses do not pay their bills on time, and all too often do not pay their bills at all. A lot of small businesses in my constituency, particularly in construction-related work, tell me that they sometimes have to wait six months or more to get paid. That increases the risk factor for a bank, because it is much more likely that the small business will fail. Has the Committee looked at the problem, or does it intend to do so, where small businesses, particularly in the construction sector, are not paid for their work?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that everyone in this House will recognise as a challenge. Getting paid by bigger businesses is a bane of the lives of many small business owners. I know there has been a lot of work in the Department for Business and Trade, and the Government need to lead by example by promptly paying for services. The Committee heard evidence that small businesses continue to be frustrated by this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her statement and for answering questions.
Backbench Business
Miners and Mining Communities
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered miners and mining communities.
I thank my good hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and the members of that Committee for granting this debate. Thirty-one Members from across the House supported the application for this debate, including the late Sir Tony Lloyd. He was a good friend, sadly missed, and a steadfast supporter of miners and mining communities.
Yesterday I marched with Bert Moncur, a former Murton miner and a constituent of mine who worked underground alongside my late father and my mentor and predecessor in this place, John Cummings. Hundreds of pensioners from across our coalfield communities marched on Westminster with a clear message, “We want our money back.”
We know the Government’s position. They claim to protect pensions while balancing the needs of the scheme and the taxpayer but, in reality, there is no fairness or balance. The Government have taken nearly £5 billion from the pension fund without contributing a single penny since 1984. Despite challenges such as the covid-19 pandemic, the global banking crisis and the Government’s financial meltdown, the mineworkers’ pension scheme has endured, without any Government financial support. The miners I marched with yesterday are taxpayers, who were once part of thriving mining communities that had full employment and decent wages. They contributed to their pensions assuming that they would have security in retirement, yet their jobs, wages and now pensions have been taken by this Conservative Government.
I was born into a mining family, in the coalfield community of Murton, in 1961. It is hard to explain to someone who was not born in a mining community how life was organised around the pit. I remember Murton pit pond, our swimming pool, which was heated by surplus hot water from the mine. I had my first shower at Shotton colliery pit baths. Every village had a network of colliery clubs, parks, sports teams and welfare facilities vital to community life, funded by contributions from working miners. Our culture and heritage remains, and it is celebrated in our miners’ banners and brass bands that are showcased every year at the Durham miners’ gala. On the platform, we have heard the greats of the Labour and trade union movement, the likes of Nye Bevan, Tony Benn and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The illustrious list will surely grow this year when my good and hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) addresses the gala. There is no feeling quite like marching to the racecourse, following your village banner and brass band—it is a unique privilege.
When I grew up, in the 1960s and 1970s, life was never easy in mining towns and villages, but in the main we were happy, and life had purpose and meaning. The pit provided full employment for all ages and abilities. Our streets were not paved with gold, but our communities were rich with pride and honour, and we had a sense of self-worth. The men in the mines during my childhood were from the wartime generation. They were those who had risked their lives to defend our country, democracy and way of life. They were men such as Bill McNally, a Murton miner who was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in world war one. His family still reside in the village. His grandson, Kevin McNally, is a diamond and one of my closest friends.
The coal industry was crucial in creating our nation’s wealth. It fuelled the fires of the industrial revolution, sustained us through two world wars, and enabled the growth of new sectors in finance and the City. There is no doubt about it: this country, this nation, owes the mining communities a debt of honour and gratitude, one that is yet to be repaid.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am pleased to make a brief intervention in this debate. The hon. Gentleman may not know that I was vice-chair of the all-party group on coalfield communities for some time, and I, too, wish to pay tribute to the miners, for whom I fought during the miners’ strike. I did so for the UDM—Union of Democratic Mineworkers—side of things. Those of us who were brought up in the 1950s know well the conditions of the miners at that time, and I have always had enormous, deep affection for them, which I carry through to this day.
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Characteristically, he was generous in his remarks and we appreciate it.
The last pit in my constituency, Easington colliery, closed in 1993, at a time when coal provided 50% of the UK’s electricity production. The decision at the time to close the British coal industry made our country dependent on imported coal, which until 2014 still accounted for 35% of energy generation. Coalfield communities have never fully recovered from de-industrialisation, as was proven in the new “State of the Coalfields 2024” report published by Sheffield Hallam University and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. In response to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the all-party group continues to take up causes and issues, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).
The Government continue to undermine the local economy, as evidenced in the excellent report, despite the regular trumpeting of levelling-up policies. In reality, the Conservative party chooses to invest levelling-up funding in places like Richmond and Cheltenham, rather than in places like Horden, in my constituency, which is in the top 1% of the most deprived areas in the country. Levelling up offered hope, but the ready-to-go Horden masterplan for regeneration was sidelined by a Conservative- led coalition from Durham County Council that favoured a single bid from Bishop Auckland, a constituency represented by a Conservative MP and a former Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Government have ignored and neglected our most deprived mining communities. Far from levelling up, Conservative Ministers have widened economic inequalities.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the levelling-up agenda the Government are pursuing is that it is mainly about capital investment? Although that investment is desperately needed in coalfield areas, Durham County Council has also lost £240 million from its grants, so the services that our constituents rely on have been devastated over the past 14 years.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to talk about the levelling-up bidding rounds. He and other hon. Members are well aware of the costs that were incurred by the county council—£1.2 million—in preparing bids that were not approved by the Government. We should have a means-based system; it should not be a beauty contest. Those communities, including the mining communities that are among the most deprived and urgently need regeneration, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is not happening. The evidence is quite clear and is laid out in the “State of the Coalfields” report. I know other hon. Members will mention that, so I will not dwell on that point.
Coalfield communities undoubtedly face numerous challenges: a lack of job opportunities, limited public investment, and higher council taxes. We could have a separate debate about the flawed council tax that penalises areas with relatively low property values, like mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Demand on social services is increased in coalfield communities because of an ageing population, many of whom have health legacies associated with working in pits and heavy industry, and generally have lower disposable incomes. Under these conditions, local economies struggle to thrive, lacking sufficient income to support vital small businesses and employment opportunities.
Low wealth coincides with low wages, making my region, the north-east, the lowest paid in the country. The Government could alleviate this, in part, by addressing past injustices and ensuring retirement security for mine- workers and their widows by reforming the mineworkers’ pension scheme, in line with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommendations published April 2021.
A legacy of mining is industrial disease, cutting lives short, including those of my own father and grandfather, who were both coalminers who passed away in their 50s, before reaching retirement age. My father died in the belief that his pit pension would provide security for my ageing mother, who happens to be celebrating her 88th birthday on Sunday. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We know that some pensioners receive as little as £10 a week from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Our miners created the wealth that made this country great, with the mineworkers’ pension scheme being among the UK’s largest pension funds. However, money that should be used to provide security in retirement is being siphoned off by the Treasury, taking half of all the pension fund’s surpluses.
In a parliamentary response to me in December, Ministers confirmed that they had taken £4.8 billion—billion not million, as was reported on the TV last night—out of the pension scheme. I note also that this figure has not been adjusted for inflation, so can the Minister tell me what the figure would be if it were adjusted for inflation? This money should be used to enhance pensions, not only providing extra security in retirement, but supporting our local economies, coalfield communities, employment and small businesses. The vast majority of retired miners and their widows continue to live in our coalfield communities.
The moral case for reform was strengthened by an unfulfilled promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister. I must remind Members—particularly those on the Conservative Benches—of the promise made by Boris Johnson when addressing miners in Mansfield and Ashfield during the 2019 general election campaign. Once again, he deceived voters, failing to fulfil his promise on the surplus sharing arrangements, which remain grossly unjust. The Government and the Minister have the opportunity to put that right today.
I commend my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who chaired the then Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee, which provided a blueprint for reform. The Select Committee report on the mine- workers’ pension scheme offers a road map for retaining the Crown guarantee, releasing the £1.2 billion in the investment reserve fund, returning the surplus, and protecting the taxpayer. With key Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Bristol North West, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North likely to hold crucial positions in a future Labour Government, I am confident that we can achieve pension justice for retired miners and their widows in our coalfield communities. I urge those on my own Front Bench to provide a clear commitment on this issue at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, I want to mention my constituent, Ray Patterson, who sadly passed away last year, aged just 62. He was one of the 11,291 people arrested and one of 9,000 sacked during the miners’ strike. His life was changed forever by his imprisonment on the ancient charge of unlawful assembly—a law that can trace its origins back to 1328. After the strike, the Government abolished unlawful assembly and introduced the Public Order Act 1986. Ray was innocent and at any other time he would not have been arrested, charged, or convicted.
I was 24 during the miners’ strike and saw how the Conservative Government tried to starve workers and their families into submission. I saw a police state on the streets of east Durham, intent on crushing miners fighting to protect their jobs and communities. The Government, courts, police and national media were part of a criminal conspiracy against working people in coalfield communities.
Ray, who was imprisoned and lost his job and pension, spent the rest of his life rebuilding. He left us too early, but his legacy will live on through his family. Ray maintained his innocence and fought to exonerate himself —I am sorry, Ray, that we could not deliver justice in your lifetime. We need the truth. While Scotland has taken steps with the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, England and Wales lag behind. The policing of the strike was notorious, marked by perjury and fabricated evidence, which were willingly accepted in the Government’s war on the miners.
Four decades later, it is imperative that Ministers commit to uncovering the truth about the strike, particularly events in relation to Orgreave. Many convictions from the strike are unsafe, warranting the erasure of criminal records, with only a few exceptions. From Orgreave to Hillsborough, a pattern of criminal misconduct in public office emerges, with South Yorkshire police at its centre.
Coalfield communities face numerous challenges in achieving justice and economic growth. We require a Government committed to levelling up, fair taxation, and justice. Despite slogans such as “big society”, “northern powerhouse”, and “levelling up”, the Conservative party has failed to deliver tangible interventions, particularly in the areas of greatest need, such as Horden, Easington, Peterlee, Murton, Blackhall, South Hetton, Haswell, Shotton, and Seaham. Residents in these communities have little hope of opportunity and change under the Conservative Government, so those on the Labour Front Bench must address this challenge by bringing investment, growth, and opportunity to these former mining communities, which are in need of a real alternative.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I thank all Members who have taken the time to attend this debate today. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris)—my hon. Friend—who co-sponsored this very important debate with me.
I represent my hometown of Leigh in Parliament, and 2024 is the 125th anniversary of Leigh being granted its town charter in 1899 by Queen Victoria. There were so many mines in Leigh and the surrounding communities that the area was known in the 19th century as Coalopolis. Gradually, from the 1960s onwards, the mines began to close, with the last one closing in the early 1990s. I lived very close to Bickershaw colliery, just over the boundary from my own village of Lowton in Leigh—over Plank Lane bridge. My great-grandfather worked down that mine with his brother, who was the fire safety officer. There were some very frightening stories of mining disasters back in the day, and I am sure all those from similar mining communities could tell similar tales.
There are many legacy issues in mining communities such as ours. They include contaminated land and the recovery of land that was covered by slag heaps, as well as the economic problems that we saw as de-industrialisation took place. Leigh was home not only to a large number of mines, but to cotton mills, which disappeared a generation earlier. I am proud to say that, today, unemployment in Leigh is pretty close to the national average. As Leigh is situated halfway between Liverpool and Manchester, we are gradually transitioning from a former mining community to a commuter community. I hope that one day Leigh can be as wealthy as Stockport or Trafford. Certainly, that is an ambition to which everyone in my home community can aspire.
I wish to talk about some of the things that we have been doing since I was elected as the Member of Parliament. First, Leigh has had £20 million for a new community diagnostic centre and operating theatre at Leigh Infirmary. Historically, people from Leigh have had to go to Wigan, which might not seem far away, but it can take 45 minutes to get there through heavy traffic, so it is important that our town has full facilities at the infirmary. We received £11.5 million from the levelling-up fund to refurbish Leigh market, the town square and shop fronts on Bradshawgate. Hopefully that work will begin soon. We have a further £1.5 million to regenerate Railway Road, where my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) used to have his hairdresser shop back in the day, although, as Members can tell, it is a while since I have needed his services. We have also receive £20 million over 10 years from the future towns fund for further regeneration projects in Leigh. That is £53 million that the Government are putting into the regeneration of Leigh, and I am very proud to have played my part in helping to secure that funding.
However, that is not the only funding that the constituency is getting; that is just some of the funding for the main town of Leigh itself, which is only about half the constituency. The surrounding former mining communities also make up about 50% of the constituency.
It may surprise Members—to some degree it surprised me—that the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and I are waiting on final approval for Golborne station’s reopening, for which the Government have already provided £14 million from the transforming cities fund. If we are successful, and I truly hope that we are, this will be the first time since the 1960s that the constituency has had a railway station. I hope that it will prove to be the template for a future station serving the town of Leigh itself. Andy Burnham and I have not always seen eye to eye, but I am proud that we have been able to put party politics aside and work together on that project. I really hope that the Department for Transport will approve it; I have my fingers crossed.
There was also a successful bid for £1 million for the Tyldesley heritage action zone—the first community-led regeneration project of its kind in the country. I thank Ian Tomlinson and the For Tyldesley community interest company for the great work that they are doing to regenerate Elliott Street, the high street in Tyldesley. Finally, I am working on a bid with Transport for Greater Manchester to secure £53 million of transport funding from the cancelled HS2 project to complete the Atherleigh Way bypass, to deal with the congestion that has been blighting Leigh, Atherton and my home village of Lowton for over 60 years.
That is £54 million secured for the former mining communities in my constituency, and £67 million more that we are fighting for, under this Conservative Government. I am proud that we have finally seen some money come to our town. As many people will say, including former Members for my seat, we have often felt like a forgotten part of the north-west of England and a forgotten corner of the borough of Wigan. I am proud to say that that is starting to change.
I am very proud to have served my constituency for nearly five years as the local MP, but I have a couple of requests of the Minister. First, Leigh could have secured another £8.5 million from the levelling-up fund, but Wigan Council refused to bid for the full £20 million available. The hon. Member for Easington said that he faced similar problems with the levelling-up fund bid. We have to find a better model for future rounds of levelling-up funding, because councils cannot be the arbiter of the funding we get. Every constituency has the right to the same amount of money, and it is important that everyone gets the £20 million they are eligible for. A better model needs to be found for allocating future funding and putting in bids. Some colleagues have said that they have £20 million in the pot waiting, but their local authority has simply refused to bid for it. That is not good, especially when the mining communities that we represent are so in need of that money, given the historical issues and problems that they face.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I feel a bit disturbed by the line that the hon. Member is going down. My local authority has tried to make bids in each of the different rounds. One time, we were told that we were not allowed to do so because we had received 5p in a previous round. Then we were told that we should apply in the next round, which did not even come into existence. We have been led a merry dance in my local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, local authority staff have wasted hours, and thousands of pounds, completing a completely nugatory exercise. The Government should be ashamed of this process.
James Grundy
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. We are looking down opposite ends of the kaleidoscope. His council has wanted to put forward bids and not got them. My council first came up with a bid to spend £20 million on a multi-storey car park, which was completely unacceptable. Then it bid for half the money. I think the one thing that we can both agree on is that the initial model for the levelling-up fund bore considerable room for improvement. That needs to be addressed, which is why I am raising it with the Minister. It is a cross-party concern, and I am happy to say that in this Chamber.
Finally, the hon. Member for Easington raised the miners’ pension fund. I urge the Minister to take back to colleagues in Cabinet the issues that will doubtless be raised by voices across the Chamber. It is a matter of justice that miners get back the surplus from their pension fund. It is their money. They paid it into the system. We promised them that we would resolve this, and we should —it is only just. With that, I shall sit down, for I have said my piece. I welcome contributions from other Members.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
I know that you cannot take part in today’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have a strong connection with miners and coalfield communities, and your presence in the Chair should be recognised.
I am pleased to speak in this debate, as a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, as a patron of the Workers Memorial charity in St Helens, and as the MP for a very proud Lancashire mining community. I was born in the summer of 1984. I know that there will be disbelief at that, given my youthful visage and disposition. I am positively Jurassic compared with our new kid on the block, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather). As I approach my own landmark this year, like many others I have been watching and listening to the excellent documentaries, podcasts and reflections on the 40th anniversary of the miners’ strike. As someone relatively au fait with the history of that period, which some of my esteemed colleagues lived through—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing today’s debate and the work that he does—I was frankly surprised by how surprised I was by the revelations contained in much of the testimony provided by those involved.
I am not naive about the excesses of the state and its abuse of power—it had life and death consequences every day where I grew up—but I had not quite understood how it had manifested with such brutal consequences in England, Scotland and Wales. There was a moral vacuum at the heart of the then Government’s economic policy, which was designed to cast not just one but maybe two or three generations of men and their families out into the wilderness of worklessness. Those men and their families and communities were treated as subversives, when in fact all they were doing was asserting their right as workers and trade unionists to withdraw their labour as a last resort.
It was not just the policies that were immoral, but the strategy and the tactics to divide communities and to set worker against worker. Well, we do not forget. The solidarity today and the desire for justice and truth about what happened is still as strong. I do not say these things to settle scores or to make any of my friends on the Government Benches, some of whom come from these communities and know much more about them than I do, feel uncomfortable, but the people I represent would want and expect me to say them, and it is my duty and privilege to do so.
However, the positive legacy of mining and miners is still a shining light in St Helens. The work done by the North West Miners Heritage Association is testament to that. It preserves the stories and memories, it has recreated the beautiful banners, and it provides support to old friends and comrades. As many of the physical signs of our industrial past fade from view, the association, the brass bands and the rugby league clubs keep the flame alive, and ensure that this and subsequent generations know the history of their forebears. We need to look after some of their forebears now. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington and my neighbour the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) talked about miners’ pensions. I pay tribute to Colin Rooney from Haydock in my constituency, who is one of the leading campaigners on that issue. I hope that those on both Front Benches—that of the outgoing Government and that of, hopefully, the incoming Government—have heard what has been said on that.
It is important to say that mining communities such as the one I represent are as much about the future as the past. In St Helens, one of our flagship regeneration projects is the development of Parkside. It was the last Lancashire colliery to close in 1993. It lay idle for over 20 years. When I was elected nine years ago, I said that it was one of my priorities to get the project moving. That is why I am so proud that, working with the Labour council, we have secured tens of millions of pounds in funding to redevelop and renew the site, attracting public and private investment, building new infrastructure and creating employment. Working with the Labour-run Liverpool city region, we secured designated free port status, which is attracting advanced manufacturing and the jobs of the future, putting St Helens at the heart of industry and innovation again.
We are also undertaking one of the most ambitious brownfield development projects in old mining communities in Parr and Bold, creating new housing and community facilities to help those places thrive. That takes a lot of work, not least to clean up contaminated land with limited funding. I hope that in government my party will look at restoring central Government funding to do that, as part of the very welcome plans to unblock planning and build more good, appropriate and affordable housing.
We know too that we need more jobs, more skills and more business and economic growth. The “State of the Coalfields” report, which has already been referenced, gives us an enviable evidential base to put our case about where we need investment and what type of investment we need. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust continues to be a fundamental part of driving policy and progress in our areas right across the country, and it deserves ongoing and indeed enhanced support from Government to keep our communities moving ahead and to identify the help they can be given on that journey. The partnership between politicians, business and local, regional and national government is critical to that. The work done by organisations such as the Industrial Communities Alliance to drive economic, environmental and social renewal is a vital part of planning and implementing levelling up, in whatever guise and under whatever Government.
I am proud of the contribution made to those discussions and efforts by St Helens and the work we are doing there. Martin Bond, one of our councillors, is the vice- chair of the ICA for the north-west region. His grandfather, Luke Maloney, from Sutton by way of County Galway, went underground in 1930 aged 14, after his own father had been killed in the same pit, and stayed there for 40 years. That is just one example of how the past, present and future coalesce in mining communities. I want to finish by giving a sense of that. My friend Eric Foster and his comrades from the Golborne Ex Miners Association have faithfully organised an annual commemoration for the 10 men who died in the disaster at Golborne colliery in 1979. On 18 March that year, one of Britain’s last major mining accidents took place there, after a build-up of methane exploded and sent a fireball searing through the mine tunnels. We gathered from across Wigan and St Helens some weeks ago to mark the 45th anniversary. We remembered those who lost their lives, John Berry, Colin Dallimore, Desmond Edwards, Patrick Grainey, Peter Grainey, Raymond Hill, John McKenna, Walter McPherson, Brian Sherman and Bernard Trumble, and we stood with Brian Rawsthorne, then a 20-year-old apprentice electrician from Garswood in my constituency, who was seriously injured but survived. He and the families of the men who perished have borne their grief with great dignity, and they and their sacrifice are not forgotten. They can rest assured that whatever we do, in everything we do in mining communities in future, they will always be part of it, and part of us.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for securing the debate. I am also grateful for the rescheduling of this debate from the very compressed timescale that would have been offered previously, because it is so important that we take time on this debate.
Mining has been a topic of personal relevance to me since long before I became an MP. I am a proud boy from Ferryhill, a mining village in the north of my constituency, and I am familiar with the unique sense of common bond created by the challenging circumstances emanating from the towns and villages of the Durham coalfield, which is typical of the coal communities right across Britain. Fishburn was the last mine in Sedgefield to close, in 1973, with those at Wheatley Hill, Mainsforth and Trimdon Grange all having closed in 1968. It has been over 50 years since those communities had a mine—so long ago that the Prime Minister at the time was Harold Wilson—but the heritage remains strong, as we see from this debate. Despite it being over half a century since the mines were there, they still identify as mining villages.
The traditions most celebrated, as we have heard, include the annual miners gala in Durham, where the banners of the mines are paraded. I have had the privilege of attending some of the Friday celebrations, where the banner is prepared for the Saturday with the associated brass bands playing. Brass bands are a strong cultural asset of our mining communities—a culture that is at least as important to the UK as any other. As a child I remember vividly the carnivals that took place, with jazz bands and floats that brought people out to enjoy themselves. Mining is so foundational to these communities that they often have half a pit wheel prominently displayed at the entrance to the village.
We laud the heroism of the coalminers for good reason. Their work was frequently dangerous, with many thousands killed by disease and in accidents, including the 73 killed at the Trimdon Grange colliery in my constituency in 1882. The Black Bull pub in Ferryhill was renamed the Dean & Chapter to respect the 73 men who lost their lives in the colliery. The local community paper is similarly called “The Chapter” as a link to the colliery. The Dean and Chapter pit, which was located next to Ferryhill, closed in 1966, and is where my grandfather mined. While the coalminers and the communities are remembered with respect and fondness, the mines themselves were not good places to work. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), who cannot speak in this debate as he is assisting the Minister, tells me his grandfather, Ralph Mitcheson, went down Crofton pit in Blyth, having left school at 12, and made my hon. Friend’s mam promise, “Never let any of my grandkids go down that pit.”
The hon. Member for Easington and others have referred to the mineworkers pension scheme. My own position on that is very clear and is on record already. He mentioned the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s report on the subject. That was one of the first Committees I served on in this place, and I am a signatory to that report; I was pleased to contribute to and be part of that inquiry and I stand behind the report here and now.
There is no more important reflection of the importance of mining in my area than Redhills, which was known—and still is—as the pitmen’s Parliament. In that space, each pit had a representative chair, and now miners’ families are able to have brass discs attached to the chair naming specific miners who went down that particular colliery. I am proud to say that my grandfather, Thomas Ellis, is referenced on the Dean and Chapter chair.
We must also ensure that Members of all parties remember our roots and that we work together to celebrate mining communities’ history and encourage their future. I attended the installation of a blue plaque in Durham to celebrate John Forman, who played a central role in forming the Durham Miners Association and was its president from 1872 to 1900. Strangely, the only other politician present was the Liberal Democrat cabinet member for economy and partnerships. We need cross-party engagement, because people such as John, who worked so hard on mine safety—even writing a paper on how coal dust ignited and caused explosions—and was seen as the head of an organisation and a social movement that transformed the lives of the people of County Durham, are the roots of our communities, and their values need to be built upon, not forgotten.
No one would dispute that the past couple of generations of residents have had more than their share of difficulties, yet the resilience they have shown has been remarkable. It is their community identity that is the foundation for everything. That is particularly evident in the community support centres that have been established, such as Ferryhill Ladder, Cornforth Partnership, Deaf Hill community centre, Trimdon Grange community centre, Trimdon village hall and many others across my Sedgefield constituency.
For the past few years, I have been co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, which looks at the problems of deprived areas and proposes practical solutions to them. That is not just the mining villages, but they are certainly part of that cohort that could be described as left behind. We have seen our request for a community wealth fund delivered, which should be valuable to many of those communities.
One problem the APPG has consistently raised, however, is low connectivity. How can residents aspire to social mobility if they do not even have the physical mobility that would enable them to reach better jobs? In Newton Aycliffe and NETPark we have many employment opportunities, yet the bus services connecting the mining villages to them are appalling. The single most crucial factor in enabling the mining communities to thrive again is better transport connections, because they invariably have very low levels of car ownership and are too isolated for walking or cycling. Therefore, the efforts being made to improve transport links are more critical for those communities than most. I hope that the changes in the Treasury Green Book to reflect social impact can be turbocharged to deliver for those communities.
I wait with interest to see whether our new North East Mayor takes an interest in these rural connections. I fervently hope she does and that she does not just spend all her time in the urban centres of the region. It is essential that rail connectivity is also improved; I am delighted that the reopening of Ferryhill station, which will link my communities to Tyneside and Teesside, has been confirmed. I look forward to the new Mayor also committing to the Leamside line; there are rumours that she is not going to, but I hope they are false, because it would be transformational for thousands of people who currently have limited transport options and would gladly use the new stations and line to go to work and college. I will continue to work cross-party to push for delivery of that line, in particular with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to get to the key moment when he would mention the Leamside line, and I was not disappointed. As he knows, there is a connection between our constituencies, and they could be made even more connected if we got the Leamside line reopened. He mentions that the newly elected Mayor may get cold feet on it. If she does, I have a bucket of hot water ready and waiting for her feet. I have every faith that it will still be high on her agenda, and I look forward to being able to get on a train from my constituency to the hon. Gentleman’s very soon.
John Howell
I look forward to that opportunity. I have written to the North East Mayor asking for engagement on that, and I would be delighted if the hon. Lady joined me for such a meeting, should it arise.
Ferryhill station is not just about travel; it is also about economic regeneration. The station closed as part of the Beeching cuts in 1967, the same year that the Ferryhill mines closed—and the same year, as it happens, that I moved out of Ferryhill to Newton Aycliffe, about six miles away. It meant that residents lost not just a source of local jobs, but a means of travelling to new jobs. It is therefore an imperative that the project, which was recently confirmed again by the Prime Minister, now makes urgent progress. Like any investment, it will show the communities at or near the station—Ferryhill, Chilton, Mainsforth, Dean Bank, Cornforth and Bishop Middleham—that they are valued, while also presenting increased opportunities for those that are slightly further away, such as Spennymoor and Tudhoe.
One of the tenets of my election in 2019 was the desire to improve access to opportunities for all, and no one is more needing or deserving of opportunity than the residents of what were, and still are, described as mining villages. One cause of mine has been to encourage aspiration, particularly for the young people of Sedgefield, and that flows from sessions with the ambassadors of Ferryhill primary schools, led by Glenys Newby, as well as visits to schools in Hurworth, Wheatley Hill and everywhere in between.
To enable and encourage aspiration, it is critical that we create opportunity. Opportunity comes from jobs and careers, which is why I am so pleased about the growth of NETPark, a science community within two miles of Fishburn, a former mining village. Close to my mining communities is the new town of Newton Aycliffe, which offers 10,000 jobs, including at Hitachi. It is fundamental for the recovery of the mining communities that industries of the future can be sustained, including at Hitachi. I am working with everyone from unions to the Secretary of State, to find a way for those industries to continue admirably inspiring their workforce in the future. However, they will help the communities most in need only if my mining villages can reach them via the bus connection that I mentioned.
If we wish to secure future growth, we must develop new skills. I am enormously encouraged by the growth in apprenticeships in the area, where 13,490 have started since 2010, and by the increasing quality of our schools, which is helping to deliver better educational outcomes. Over the past 14 years, we have gone from 67% of our schools being rated good or outstanding to 91% today. Opportunity is supported by education, and I have been delighted to engage not only with schools but with the amazing universities that support my constituency—most notably Durham University. I commend the work being done to reach out to communities.
I am delighted that Fiona Hill, the recently appointed chancellor of Durham University, hails from Bishop Auckland, a place with challenges similar to those in my communities, so she gets it. Fiona Hill hails from a disadvantaged background but managed to rise to work on the international stage, and has now returned to become chancellor of Durham University. I support the university’s “Shy bairns get nowt” project, which is an attempt to instil more confidence in our young people so that they speak up and are not only heard but listened to.
I have such hope for the former mining communities in my area. We need to continue efforts to support education and aspiration, and to deliver better transport for those communities. Despite their challenges, I can see the potential they have to reinvent themselves. However, I cannot stress enough just how crucial bus and train services are to that process. I look forward to seeing the services improve and those amazing communities become the places that they deserve to be.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for all his important work on this issue, and I thank him and the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for leading this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). I will mention Channel 4, so I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The miners’ strike of 1984 ripped the lives of miners and their families apart. It ripped towns such as Barnsley apart. The miners were shamefully branded “the enemy within” by the then Prime Minister. Men were imprisoned because they were fighting for their jobs. Women ran soup kitchens because they were fighting for their communities. Over 30,000 men worked down the pits in Barnsley to keep the lights on and the country moving. The work was dirty and dangerous, but it was respected.
However, the Ridley report of 1977 planned the destruction of Britain’s coalmining industry, and its tactics were deployed under Margaret Thatcher in 1984. They were illustrated in the excellent Channel 4 documentary on the miners’ strike earlier this year, which highlighted the experiences, impact and legacy of the strike 40 years on, and showed in particular new footage of the events at Orgreave on 18 June. Orgreave changed how we are policed as a society, but it also changed many lives that day, as the documentary so powerfully highlights. Trust in the police is still impacted in areas such as mine, even today. Constituents of mine in Barnsley are still waiting for justice for what happened to them at Orgreave, and they deserve to know the truth.
Many men who went down the pit have suffered from long-term health issues. The previous Labour Government gave £2 billion-worth of compensation to coalminers who had contracted lung diseases as a result of their work for British Coal, and around £500 million for those who were injured by their use of vibrating tools down the pit. However, although former miners can seek compensation through the industrial injuries disablement benefits claims process, many often report that the system is difficult to navigate.
Sadly, former miners and their families often tell the National Union of Mineworkers that they have not been assessed correctly and are therefore deemed ineligible for the compensation they deserve. It is often left to spouses to fight for miners’ compensation after their death, waiting for a post mortem to prove that they did indeed have lungs full of coal dust and that it was the cause of their severe ill health and subsequent early death. We must do better in our approach to this issue, so that the men struggling with poor health are given the support they need. The NUM does an important job to this day in supporting miners in their struggles with industrial disease, and it has worked with my office on a number of cases in recent years.
Another issue that affects thousands of my constituents is the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and I met miners who had travelled from Barnsley to Westminster to meet us and campaign for change to the scheme. The average miner has a pension of just £84 per week, and widows are on a lot less. Through the 50-50 surplus-sharing arrangement, the Government have taken £4.8 billion pounds out of the scheme, and that figure is set to rise to £6 billion. In response to a parliamentary written question, Ministers have admitted to me that the “take it or leave it” deal when the pits were privatised was done without any actuarial advice.
I was pleased to secure the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into that injustice. I am grateful to the Committee’s then Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—he is now shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury —for all his work on the issue. His report clearly concluded that the Government should not be in the business of profiting from miners’ pensions. Having campaigned to secure that enquiry, I have raised this issue dozens of times in this place, I have met Ministers and shadow Ministers and, earlier this year, I visited the Treasury to make the case once again. I will continue to campaign for action and justice on the mineworkers’ pension scheme.
Almost 90% of the mining workforce became unemployed in the first 10 years after the 1984 strike. For communities in the north, Scotland, south Wales and, of course, Yorkshire, where coalmining was a vital industry, the effects were devastating. In 1994, a year after the pit closed, Grimethorpe in Barnsley East was named the poorest village in Britain. That was portrayed so powerfully in the film “Brassed Off”, which showed the impact on our community. Last year we marked the 30th anniversary since the pit ceased production. Hundreds attended the miners’ memorial in Grimethorpe on the Thursday before Christmas, as they do every year, to remember the men who went to work and did not return home, as was sadly too often the case at collieries across the country. Indeed, I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Member for Doncaster Central, regularly attend the Armthorpe memorial and have been a strong champion for miners.
Economically, areas such as Barnsley have never recovered. In its report, “Next Steps in Levelling Up the Former Coalfields”, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has made a number of recommendations for former coalfield areas. These include stronger policies to grow local economies and tackle economic inactivity, improvements to the transport infrastructure, and increased provision of apprenticeships. Following my questions in this place, I was pleased that the Secretary of State agreed to visit Barnsley East to see at first hand the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, based in Wombwell in my constituency. However, despite being deserving by every measure, Barnsley East has missed out on levelling-up funding. Levelling up was meant to support left-behind areas, but it has failed to do so.
Barnsley was built on coal. Mining powered communities and our communities powered a nation. When I held an Adjournment debate on the mineworkers’ pension scheme in 2019, there were 160,000 men in that scheme, but today that number has sadly fallen to just under 125,000. Time is running out. We can and should do better for our miners, whether that be on miners’ health, on miners’ pensions or for mining areas, as they face the economic legacy of pit closures to this day. The National Union of Mineworkers has a banner in Barnsley that states:
“The past we inherit, the future we build.”
That is just what we need to do: build a better future for our coalfield communities.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I am the furthest south, by a long way, among the Members who will participate, but the fact is that Cornwall has an incredibly proud heritage and history of mining. It is not just about our history; we still have a thriving mining sector in my constituency, and some amazing opportunities to come. When most people think about my constituency, they are aware of the beaches, the coasts and all that we have to offer tourists, but the middle part of my community—what we often call the clay villages, because of the history of china clay mining there—has far more in common with former mining villages in the north of England than it does with the rest of the south of England. Representing such a diverse constituency that contains so many different elements presents me with some interesting questions and challenges.
Our mining history in Cornwall goes back literally 4,000 years—it goes back to the bronze age, when tin was discovered and mined to create the bronze that was needed in that era. By Roman times, tin was already a much traded and sought-after commodity that was being extracted in Cornwall. At that time, Cornwall was actually described as one of the wealthiest strips of land anywhere on earth, because of the incredible wealth brought by tin mining. By medieval times, Cornwall’s status as the tin mining capital of the world had become so important, and the wealth it generated for the Crown had become so significant, that a set of special bodies and laws was established through the stannary courts and parliaments to protect that mining wealth. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Cornish tin and copper mining reached its zenith: the metals mined from Cornwall helped to provide the raw materials for the industrial revolution and were a major contributor to the economic growth of our nation, and indeed of the empire.
Cornwall has also been at the forefront of pioneering in mining. The high-pressure steam engine was invented in Cornwall by Richard Trevithick, which led to the creation of the iconic engine houses. At one point there were over 200 engine houses in Cornwall, and when Cornish miners went around the world they took that technology with them—in many parts of the world where mining takes place, the same engine houses can be seen. We in Cornwall also invented the safety lamp: Humphry Davy’s invention was another major bit of pioneering safety equipment for miners of the time.
More recently, the extraction of china clay in my constituency has been at the heart of the Cornish economy. Cornwall has the largest and highest-grade deposit of kaolin—also known as china clay—anywhere in the world, and for 250 years now has been extracting, producing and exporting high-quality china clay. I am proud that several of my ancestors, and my grandfather and my uncle, worked in the china clay industry. By 1910, Cornwall was producing 50% of the world’s china clay, which revolutionised mid-Cornwall, the part of Cornwall that I am proud to represent.
For example, the tiny village of West Polmear had only nine residents, but then Charles Rashleigh invested huge sums of money to create factories and homes for the china clay workers, and very quickly it became a village of several hundred people. He renamed the village Charlestown—not after the King, as many think, but after himself. Many people will be familiar with Charlestown today as a thriving visitor centre, and will probably also recognise it as one of the places that was regularly featured in the BBC’s “Poldark” series.
That period also saw the Cornish mining diaspora, where about 250,000 Cornish miners and their families left Cornwall to spread literally around the world. At that time, it was said that if you found a hole in the ground anywhere in the world, you would find a Cornishman at the bottom of it. Today, statues commemorating Cornish miners can be found in the state of Victoria in Australia; and there is a Cornish waterwheel in British Columbia in Canada, a Cornish cultural society in Mexico and, most importantly, a Cousin Jack’s pasty shop in California. All are clear signs of how Cornish miners spread around the world.
However, like many of the stories we have heard this afternoon, the clay villages in my constituency, as with any mining sector, have faced huge challenges as the number of people employed has fallen. The china clay industry used to employ around 10,000 people in my constituency, but today that figure is just over 1,000. That has presented a number of challenges for those communities, economically, socially, and in terms of health. They are some of the most disadvantaged communities in Cornwall, and indeed in the country. They face challenges in finding jobs: many of the jobs we now have in Cornwall that are linked to tourism or food production are lower paid and often seasonal. As other Members have mentioned, the lack of good transport links also presents a huge challenge.
However, great work has been going on in recent years. We are seeing the regeneration of old china clay pits through the creation of a garden village, with the construction of about 1,300 new houses, a new school and new workplace buildings, and real investment in that area. A new link road is being built through the china clay area, with £80 million of Government investment, which will improve connectivity. That is the single biggest investment in mid-Cornwall by any Government. The Government have also provided £50 million through the levelling-up fund to upgrade the branch line between Newquay and Par and connect it through to Truro and Falmouth—what we call the mid-Cornwall metro—which will also greatly improve transport connectivity for many of those china clay villages.
We are also seeing significant investment in St Austell Hospital, which serves many of those communities—a £15 million surgical hub is being built right now and will be opened in the coming months—and the redevelopment of Cornwall College in St Austell will serve many of those communities, with a brand-new campus about to be built in the coming months. The Government have recognised the needs of those communities. More than any previous Government, they have provided those villages with investment to help to address some of the disadvantage they face.
However, this is not just about the mining of the past. Cornwall has a great opportunity that I believe will breathe new life into and revive our mining sector: lithium extraction. We have known for 200 years that there is lithium in Cornwall—I have seen old mining maps from the 1800s showing significant deposits of lithium in Cornwall—but it is only recently, because of the need for lithium for producing batteries, particularly for electric vehicles, that there has been a market for the mineral. Two companies, Cornish Lithium and Imerys British Lithium, are looking to develop the extraction of lithium, which will provide the UK with a secure domestic supply of what will be one of the most sought-after elements in the decades to come. It is estimated that they could produce 50% of the lithium that British car manufacturing will need for the batteries we will have to produce.
That is very good news not only for Cornwall, but for the UK. In one of his previous jobs, the Minister came to visit us, and he is aware of the opportunity presented. It is not only a great economic opportunity, but I believe it provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the extraction of elements going into the manufacturing of batteries in the UK has the highest environmental and ethical standards. One concern that local people sometimes raise with me is that lithium extraction does not have a particularly good reputation around the world either in the ethics applied to it or in its environmental impact. However, we can produce lithium in Cornwall to the highest possible environmental standards and to the highest ethical standards, which I think puts us in a very strong competitive position in the global market.
There is a great opportunity to revive the mining sector and give mid-Cornwall a great future for decades to come. Being good at taking things out of the ground has been part of Cornwall’s history, but a lot of the value and the higher-paid jobs have ended up elsewhere. This time, we want to ensure that we capture as much as possible of the value of lithium extraction and that we keep it in Cornwall. We must create the well-paid jobs in Cornwall and keep the value there as much as we can, so that there is a lasting and positive impact on our economy.
We are incredibly proud of Cornwall’s heritage and history of mining—it is in our DNA; it is what our people have done for thousands of years—but there is also a huge opportunity for it to be part of Cornwall’s future, and for Cornwall to play a significant part in our national prosperity once again.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1984 miners’ strike. As we heard in his speech, he has fought for miners and their families since he was elected in 2010.
It is also a privilege to speak in this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). Along with his entire community, he was out on strike for the whole year to save the British coal industry, and what he and other miners experienced was a disgrace. It was brutal, it was callous and it was completely unjust, and I support my hon. Friend in his repeated call for a public inquiry.
If Margaret Thatcher was at the Dispatch Box today, I would ask her: “How could you have done this? How could you have left what were once real communities, full of life and solidarity, in such a state of despair and disrepair? How could you do this without any plan, without any reparations and without any transition—nothing for the miners and their families?” Those questions apply to all those who enabled her: her MPs, her peers and her allies in the media, who spun lie after lie about the miners and the mining industry. To all those who did not speak out, I ask: “How could you sit on the fence when this cultural and economic vandalism was taking place?”
We must be clear about something else. Miners had no choice but to strike because they knew exactly what was at stake not just for themselves, but for their families, their villages and the entire country even. At the very least, the Government owe an apology to the miners and their families.
There is so much to cover in this debate, such as the aftermath of the strike, the numerous injustices, the wrongful convictions, the health inequalities and the economic wrongs that go on to this day. I know I will not be able to cover everything, but time permitting, I will try to cover the role of my constituency, the role of women in the north-east and the policies we need to see in coalfield areas today.
I am privileged—genuinely so—to represent the City of Durham, which hosts the Durham miners’ gala every year. It is the greatest demonstration of working-class solidarity in the world, and it would not be possible without the Durham Miners Association, which is headquartered at Redhills, also in my constituency. Can I put on record my thanks to the DMA, particularly Alan Mardghum and Stephen Guy, for its work in hosting the gala, its support to ex-miners, and its support to me and my office?
Since 1871, there have been only a few occasions when the gala has been cancelled—during the world wars, the general strike and, most recently, the pandemic. It was also cancelled in 1984, months after the strike began. Instead, a strike rally was held in its place. One right-wing paper said that Durham looked like “a city under siege” on that day, but the footage presents another picture. It shows banners and brass bands with communities and families marching together—no different to any other gala. It is a small insight into the way the media distorted the reality of the miners and their communities that even an event as joyous as a rally in Durham could be turned into something sinister by the press. That occurred throughout the strike, and no more so than at Orgreave. We cannot forget what happened on that day. To put it simply, we need a public inquiry.
On a clear day, people at the gala can see the top of Durham cathedral from the racecourse where they assemble with their banners. Hon. Members will know that the cathedral and its community play an important role in the gala. The miners festival service, during which banners are blessed by the Bishop of Durham, has been going on for as long as the gala itself. The banners are beautiful, and I am proud to have contributed to one and to have assisted others in getting theirs made. They represent people and places, and they can be as theological as they are political.
In the south aisle of the cathedral is the miners’ memorial, which is dedicated to Durham miners who lost their lives in the county’s pits. Next to it is a book of remembrance listing all the men and boys who lost their lives, and above it hangs a miner’s lamp. The cathedral played an important role in the strike, and no more so than through David Jenkins, the former Bishop of Durham. Let us recall some of his words from his enthronement service in September 1984. He said that
“the miners must not be defeated. They are desperate for their communities and this desperation forces them to action.”
Jenkins went on to speak about what happens when a mine closes and the impact of that on the community. He put it bluntly when he said:
“It is death, depression and desolation.”
When I spoke to my friend Dave Anderson, the former Member of Parliament for Blaydon and a former miner himself, he told me that the effect of the pit closures could be seen within months. In fact, in his speech following the death of Margaret Thatcher, he said:
“The village where I lived had seen coal mining for almost two centuries. In a matter of months after closure, we were gripped by a wave of petty crime—burglary and car crime—mostly related to drugs. We have never recovered from it.”—[Official Report, 10 April 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1672.]
What Jenkins said was prophetic.
Although the mines are now closed—the last mine in the City of Durham closed in 1984—we can still secure justice for those affected. For instance, the Minister could say at the Dispatch Box that he will introduce legislation to pardon the miners who were wrongly convicted during the strike, because some of the stories I have heard are as absurd as they are unjust. They include that of a Durham miner who was accused of a breach of the peace for pouring a cup of tea at the picket line. I repeat what I said at the start: we need a public inquiry.
We also need economic justice for our communities. The DMA told me that a miner’s job created many other jobs in the community and beyond, including at least five in the supply chain. If we reflect on this point, the destruction and recklessness of Thatcher’s Government becomes unambiguous. I asked at the beginning how her Government could do this to their own people. The mine was at the heart of the community. It was the primary source of employment and everyone knew what the consequences were for children. It is an injustice that no transitional plans were made, as there were and still are in other countries. Germany, for instance, took a long-term view about manufacturing; why didn’t we? We had the potential to lead the world in alternative sources of energy. We could have reskilled and restructured our industry, but instead the Government chose destruction. And I say to the Labour Front Bench that we can still do this, and we should do this when we form the next Government.
Thankfully, not all women were like Margaret Thatcher during the strike. The contribution of working-class women during that strike cannot be underestimated. Heather Wood, an activist during the strike and a great friend to me, told me that the strike might not have lasted so long had women not been involved. In the north-east, women’s groups like the one Heather is involved in were feeding up to 1,000 people a day five days a week. They organised holidays for the children of the miners, provided childcare and food during the school holidays and presents and toys for the children on the Christmas of 1984, and helped parents find school uniforms when the autumn term began, assisted people with their household bills, and provided emotional support when things got tough, as they so often did. It was truly heroic work, all done on a shoestring, all done in the spirit of working-class solidarity. And when the miners returned to work in March 1985 the women’s support groups in the north-east continued, and, importantly, their involvement in the strike politicised them and many went into public service, becoming councillors and community activists, and they are still doing that today with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign.
Mrs Hodgson
I am one of those women who were politicised by Margaret Thatcher. I always say Margaret Thatcher is the reason I joined the Labour party and the reason I am standing here today. The younger generation might be curious as to why we are all talking about Margaret Thatcher so much; those who did not grow up in the north-east in one of those mining communities might not quite understand how it felt, but she smote our communities. That is how it felt to grow up under her reign. Does my hon. Friend agree that if all our mining communities were clustered together into one region, even today that region would statistically be the poorest region in the country, and that is what we are talking about today?
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more; Margaret Thatcher politicised me too—to do exactly the opposite of what she did. Since the destruction and closure of the pits we have seen continuous health and economic inequality, and my hon. Friend is right that we are one of the poorest regions, and we desperately need to do something because, as has been pointed out, the miners created the wealth of this country in the first place.
The miners’ strike might not have been won, but the working class definitely were not defeated; they are bruised but not defeated. People are still coming to the gala—more than ever in fact—and former mining communities are still having their banners blessed at Durham Cathedral, and that means something. Those of us who represent the mining communities will keep fighting for justice for our communities, and I repeat that there must be no less than a pardon for miners wrongly convicted in the strike, a full public inquiry into the events of the strike, including those at Orgreave, and economic justice for miners and their families.
The miners were not the enemy within. They came from families who fought in two world wars. They represented the best of this country, and I am proud to represent them in Parliament. What we need now is a Labour Government to revitalise these coalfield areas, deliver the justice that miners and their communities deserve, and fulfil the words of our community—the past we inherit, the future we build.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I want to declare an interest on a whole number of fronts for today’s contribution, but first I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for bringing this topic to the House’s attention. We have heard some fantastic speeches here from everyone across the House.
I want to declare an interest because I am probably the only miner out of 650 MPs currently sitting in the House. I am probably the only Member who left school at the age of 16 and went to the pits together with my father. My father was not one of those miners who said, “I’m sorry, you canna gan doon the pit because it’s a dangerous job.” My father, like lots of others, wanted and got their kids employment in the pit. That is the way it was, and I am absolutely proud: I am proud to be a miner; I am proud to have spent my younger days on the coalface six miles under the North sea, only 80 feet below the seabed; and I have got some tremendous memories. I am really proud of what we have achieved: what we achieved collectively, as communities, as the National Union of Mineworkers; how we supported each other and would not turn our backs on friends and colleagues and those in most need. We were a real fighting force in the communities, not just in the north-east, not just in Durham and Northumberland, but right across the country.
It has been mentioned that Margaret Thatcher stated clearly that the miners were the enemy within. Despite people being offended by that, I see it as a badge of honour. I see that as a badge of honour because I opposed everything that the Tories were doing right up to the miners’ strike and I oppose everything, or nearly everything, they have done since then. I am one of the enemy within.
I remember being on the picket line with my father—who is no longer with us—my brothers, my cousins and my friends. The only crime we were committing was to fight for jobs and the future. It was never about wages, terms and conditions; it was about the right to work and the right to ensure that our communities would be secure in the future. And we got absolutely blitzed for doing so.
Our pride turns to great anger when we think about how the Government at the time—the Thatcher Government —turned the whole state against hard-working individuals, their families and their communities and against their only means of surviving and the way in which their communities were economically stimulated, and when I think about the way in which the police, and some say the armed forces, were used against miners during the miner’s strike. I did not just witness it; I was part of it. I saw the brutality, and I could give a number of personal tales that I would prefer not to at this moment in time. But I was proud, and I am still proud, to represent the mining communities of south-east Northumberland. I live in and represent Ashington, known as “coal town” because it was perhaps the biggest coal-producing town in Europe if not the world, and there were lots of pits in places including Bedlington, Newbiggin, Morpeth, Stakeford and Guide Post.
We can look at how the miners were tret during the strike and at the fact that 40 years on, we still have 11,000 who were arrested by the police. There were a thousand sacked miners, and many of them never got employment again anywhere. Many were acquitted because of dishonest police practices and police evidence. Again, I personally witnessed the horrors of the Government policy against my own community, my own family and me personally.
The calls for a pardon for the mining industry were accepted in Scotland, which was a fantastic move forward, and we need to look to do that here. I personally do not want a pardon, because I did what I wanted to do because I wanted to support my community, and for many years. I do not want anybody telling me they are sorry I was arrested, because I would not believe them. The lives of many miners and lots of other people were absolutely shattered as a result of the miners’ strikes. I know people who were arrested, who had never been in trouble with the police before, and who ended up in police cells. The plea bargaining meant either they went to prison or they accepted a charge for something they had not been involved with at all. It was so corrupt. It was absolutely disgraceful. That is why we need a public inquiry.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the things that the documentaries and today’s debate will achieve, I hope, is for the younger generation to learn more about this period in time, and that it was as close as we will ever get to becoming a police state? If men were travelling across the country in a car, they could be pulled over and questioned about where they were going and even arrested. We need people to understand that that is what happened, when all our communities were doing was fighting for their jobs.
Ian Lavery
I have to say that I cannot watch those documentaries; it is too emotional. I agree with every sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses.
We should never forget what happened. A number of my hon. Friends have mentioned the Durham miners, the Durham miners’ gala and specifically Alan, Stephen and the whole team there, and I have huge admiration for them. What a wonderful day the Durham miners’ gala is, with hundreds of thousands of individuals flying their banners, brass bands, music, celebration and speeches remembering the mining industry. I have got a lot of time for the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which has fought valiantly to seek justice for individuals involved in Orgreave. I have lots of admiration and support for the Women Against Pit Closures. In particular, somebody who goes unnoticed a lot is a lady from my patch in south-east Northumberland, Ann Lilburn. She was known as the housewife from Hadston, and she was absolutely fantastic leading the women of south-east Northumberland and later the Women Against Pit Closures. I have to say, if it had not been for the women during the miners’ strike, I am not sure how long it would have lasted. Their support was absolutely fabulous. I pay tribute to a man who has sadly passed on, Rick Sumner, who for years supported the National Justice for Mineworkers campaign, which was to remember sacked miners.
A whole number of issues need to and will be raised, but I want to discuss the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Labour party manifestos of 2017 and 2019 agreed to redress the huge anomaly that everybody will mention. Again, I declare an interest, as I am the only current member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in this place. I am still a member, so I declare that interest. The mineworkers’ pension scheme is deferred wages, like any pension, and that should be recognised. The 50:50 split came in 1994, and that was a crime. We have had £4.4 billion siphoned off and trousered by the Tory Government. Let us be honest, the BEIS Committee recommendations are not too hard to accept. The money is already in the funds, and the BEIS Committee said that that money should be redistributed to members, many of whom are on less than £85 a week. Some 50% are on less than £65 a week, 25% are on less than £35 a week, and 10% are on less than £10 a week. Let us get them paid and make sure we do the right business.
One thing that needs to be focused on is compensation, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). Mining was a tough, hard and severe job, and people have had severe personal problems and consequences as result. The Government imposed wholesale vindictive industrial austerity on the mining communities. I give a big thank you to the NUM and the advice centres up and down the country for the fantastic work they continue to do. We have to look at the miners’ pneumoconiosis scheme, which is awful. It is so difficult for members to attract compensation, even though it is one of the most dreadful diseases that we can ever imagine. Can we not get the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the coal industry liabilities team, Nabarro and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council together in a room to see how we can get these payments made? People are now suffering greatly as a result of working underground, and we must make sure that they can gain compensation without the default position being to deny any claims. We have issues with CISWO, levelling up, the destruction of the mining community and much more.
To conclude, I understand that the Minister’s two grandfathers were miners. I think that is right; I have read that somewhere, although I am not sure how true it is, but he will understand the situation. We need to look at levelling up. We need to look at a pardon for miners. We need justice for the MPS. We need a public inquiry into policing of the strike. We need a wholesale review of compensation schemes in the main and, in particular, of the pneumoconiosis scheme.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), who is no longer in his place, for securing today’s debate. It is always a real pleasure to follow our miner, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).
Coalmining was a mainstay of the economy for almost a century. In South Shields, we had St Hilda’s, Whitburn, Harton and Westoe collieries. It is therefore no surprise that people in my constituency would be hard-pressed not to know or be related to a miner. Generations of families worked down our pits. Our former pitmen will testify that it was not a glamorous job; it was dirty, hard and dangerous graft, but those negatives were well worth it for the steady income, the camaraderie, the friendship and the community that they built around our pits. That way of life and the social bonds are the thing that all former pitmen and their families say they miss the most.
Thatcherism has many ugly legacies, but the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985 was one of the most visceral, personal and defining moments of the 20th century. It was the moment of the strongest resistance against her industrial vandalism and the hollowing out of our mining communities. Not content with closing our docks and shipyards, the pits suddenly became uneconomical, she said. Those who tried to resist this blatant destruction of our communities were arrested and convicted. This weaponisation of the state against ordinary men and women fighting for their livelihoods during the strikes draws worrying parallels with today’s anti-strike legislation. It is why we need a public inquiry into Orgreave, and it is why this Government should introduce similar legislation to that introduced in the Scottish Parliament pardoning those convicted of matters relating to the strike. All they were trying to do was save their jobs.
I know all too well what unemployment—or the constant threat of it—can do both mentally and physically: it is utterly soul-destroying. There is one heartbreaking story that all of us in South Shields are sadly familiar with: that of a lovely family man and colliery engineer made redundant who, after dropping his children off at school, put a chain across the front door, wrote a goodbye letter to his family, climbed up the stairs, went into his bathroom, poured petrol over his clothes and, with a match, set himself alight. In 1993, his pit—Westoe pit—closed, signalling the end of not just coalmining in South Tyneside but a tradition and a way of life.
Our memories of the solidarity of the trade union movement and the rejection of the trickle-down economics that have proven such a driver of inequalities in our region have endured, because the challenges facing former coalfield communities are not consigned to the history books; they have deepened alongside regional inequalities. The economic gap between coalfield areas and the rest of the UK has been widening considerably over the last decade. Average earnings for workers in former coalfield areas are 7% below the national average. That is the legacy of de-industrialisation.
South Shields, as a post-industrial and coastal constituency, has faced and continues to face several challenges. Those are challenges that we have proven time and again that we will always overcome. In South Shields, we do not wait for Government help that never comes—we get on with stuff. Our port of Tyne is now the base of the biggest offshore wind farm in the world. We are home to hundreds of small businesses, and we have been instrumental in the fight against poverty, paving the way for holiday clubs and setting up a mobile community supermarket.
The Government’s levelling-up rhetoric rings hollow in my constituency, which has been rejected for towns fund and freeport bids and two rounds of levelling-up funding. The level of child poverty in South Shields remains stubbornly high at 40% and unemployment across South Tyneside is 6.7%, which is higher than the north-east average, yet in the Chancellor’s recent Budget he allocated London’s Canary Wharf double the amount of funding that our entire region will get.
The privatisation of once-nationalised industries that followed our pit closures has done nothing but deepen inequality, delivering profits for shareholders and decimating services that we all rely on. That is happening at the same time that the Government are pocketing the miners’ pension surplus. More than £4 billion has been given to the Government, with £420 million of that in the last three years alone. The Government keep saying that we need to strike a fair balance, but there is nothing fair about it when miners and their widows are left destitute on as little as £18 a week. We should not be surprised, because as the WASPI women know all too well, this Government have form when it comes to pension grabbing. Our miners were prosecuted and made redundant, and saw the heart ripped out of their communities, and now they are being robbed of their pensions, their retirement and the dignity that they all deserve.
We know all too well in South Shields that if you close a pit, you kill a community. Our proud mining heritage will always remain because of people like Gary Wilkinson, a local film maker, Bob Olley, our local artist, and Alan Mardghum and Stephen Guy from the Durham Miners’ Association, and places like South Shields Museum. Thanks to them, the generations who follow will know that underneath the South Shields streets, housing estates and fields they walk on, there were once thousands of pitmen gathering coal to power our country. We are proud of the past that we have inherited in South Shields, and it is one that we will continue to use to build our future—one that we will build with the next Labour Government.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this important debate? I am proud to have been born and brought up in Dailly, which is a coalmining village in South Ayrshire, alongside the former mining towns and villages of Cumnock, New Cumnock, Dalmellington and Patna that are also in my constituency.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, my late father Peter Dorans DCM was employed as a coalminer at one of the three mines surrounding the village. He worked at the coalface. As a coalminer, my father suffered, as many did, from common industrial diseases including vibration white finger and carpal tunnel syndrome from the frequent use of heavy drilling equipment, and partial deafness. Up to the day of his death, every time he coughed, he brought up coal dust from his lungs.
Many thousands of coalminers suffered other medical conditions including emphysema and breathing-related illnesses. Many lost limbs and suffered from other life-limiting conditions and injuries and early death as a result of the working conditions in the mines at those times. Many miners also lost their lives in mining disasters. I will highlight just two from my constituency.
In September 1950, the Knockshinnoch mining disaster occurred near New Cumnock when a glaciated lake filled with liquid peat and moss flooded the pit, trapping more than 100 miners underground for a number of days. Thirteen men died. In November 1962, at the Barony colliery near Cumnock, a mine shaft collapsed trapping two contract workers, Thomas Fyvie and George Wade, together with two colliery employees, Henry Green and John McNeil. Despite valiant and sustained efforts to rescue them, they remain entombed deep underground to this day. I pay tribute to those men and all who have lost their lives and suffered appalling life-shortening health conditions and injuries as a result of working in the coalmines.
The debt owed by this country to the men who risked their lives to power the country and economy for generations is immense. Not only did coalminers and their families make that possible; they paid a terrible price over the centuries in loss of life and limb, and in shortened lives caused by the brutal working conditions and inadequate housing and health services, just to enable others to become wealthy—some obscenely so.
Without doubt, in the last two centuries, robust, hard- working, proud men worked in incredibly difficult circumstances for what was a paltry wage—they often relied on meeting unattainable, backbreaking daily or weekly targets to earn a barely liveable wage. Despite those difficulties, the miners and their families created and sustained strong, supportive communities in the face of adversity and came together to look after each other in difficult times. [Interruption.] Excuse me.
Large-scale coal production ended in my constituency when the two largest coalmines in the area—the Killoch and the Barony—ceased production in 1987 and 1989 respectively, with the loss of thousands of mining jobs and the knock-on effect of the loss of countless jobs in the supply chain and the local economy.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making really important points about the loss of life in mining disasters, a number of which occurred in my constituency too. However, there is the ongoing legacy of industrial disease. Yesterday, I spoke to some miners from the midlands, who were lobbying Parliament and pointed out the injustice of the current schemes. One of them was suffering from chest disease—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To qualify for compensation, the requirement was 20 years of underground work, but he had worked only 19 years, so he was excluded. There are a number of other examples like that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) finds that he is having difficulty speaking and wants to take some time, I could move to the next speaker and come back to him.
Allan Dorans
I think that I will be okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have had a drink, so I will continue.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I totally agree that the system is terribly unjust and that those miners should be properly compensated.
With great difficulty, I resist the temptation to mention the part played in the demise of the coal industry by the actions of the late former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. [Interruption.] The closure of the coalmines and the subsequent—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will take a minute.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). As the proud chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. I put on record my thanks to the vice-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), who sadly is no longer in his place, for securing today’s important debate. I also thank the other vice-chair, the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who is in his place, and the former vice-chair, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), who had to resign following his elevation to the Government Whips Office.
Before I begin, it is important to emphasise that former coalfield areas make up a significant part of the country, spanning Wales, Scotland and England, with a combined population larger than Scotland, at around 5.7 million people. These areas are far too big to be ignored. As the daughter and granddaughter of former miners, this topic is of great significance to me, and to many of my constituents in Pontypridd and Taff Ely. This year is the 40th anniversary of the start of the miners’ strike. My father, who was at Orgreave, was one of those who went out on strike. The values he stood for—community, dignity and fairness—are the same values I seek to uphold. Even a generation on, the pain for those affected is still raw, yet the legacy of coalmining is about so much more than the miners’ strike. Coal is no longer dug in our areas, but that rich seam that powered Britain’s industrial revolution still runs deep in the veins of our communities. The closure of the mines may be in the past, but the people living with the consequences are not. They are living, breathing communities.
For the generation, which includes me, that has grown up since the strike, the challenges are different. Coalfield communities no longer suffer the mass unemployment of the ’80s and ’90s, but are we to believe that this change is progress? Truth be told, many former coalfield areas still lag behind much of the rest of the country. In some places, the number of jobs lost may have been replaced, but in far too many cases the respected skilled mining and engineering jobs have been replaced with low quality, poorly paid employment. That was starkly highlighted by the all-party group’s recent report, “Next Steps in Levelling Up the Former Coalfields”. I am immensely grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the House who helped shape that report, and I pay tribute to the Industrial Communities Alliance, without which the inquiry and subsequent report would not have been possible. The report represents a pivotal moment in the coalfield regeneration agenda, and sets out key steps for improving former mining communities. For the sake of time, I will focus on just a few.
Strong policies are needed to grow local economies in our former coalfields. That means an end to the city-centric model of growth. Let us be clear: the idea that growth in the cities will inevitably trickle down to our towns and mining villages is utter nonsense. Coalfield communities have a strong identity. In many cases, if people have to move away for work or commute to nearby cities, it is because they have no choice. The Government’s levelling-up initiatives are, sadly, just a slogan. We need to be honest about what small, short-term pots of money are expected to achieve. There needs to be a new model of local and regional development that places the emphasis on growing local economies, and that provides long-term financial certainty to local authorities and other partners and stakeholders.
One way in which we can develop coalfield economies is by investing in suitable premises for small and medium-sized businesses. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has a successful model of investing in units for small firms, and recycling the profits to support the local community. The winding up of the coalfields enterprise fund and the coalfields growth fund has resulted in an unexpected windfall for the Treasury of some £15 million. That may be small change to the Treasury, but for our communities it could be transformational. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have so far refused to return that money to the coalfields to support a tried and tested investment programme.
While I am on the topic of money coming back to our communities, I briefly want to mention CISWO—the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—which was set up to support assets following the closure of our mines. The assets—our miners’ welfare hall, playing fields, facilities and village halls—were paid for by the miners and bestowed in trust to that organisation. Sadly, so many Members in this place have shared frustration about the woeful and appalling operation, management and engagement of the charity. I urge the Minister to look into this as a matter of urgency and to talk to the charities Minister about what can be done. Enough is enough. We need direct action about exactly what is happening in our communities as a result of this charity’s actions.
Let me express further disappointment, as others have, in the Government once again rejecting the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee about renegotiating the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Treasury has already surpassed £5 billion of surpluses. Surely, at a time when many families not just in my constituency but across the country face hardship in the cost of living crisis, it is only fair that the miners who contributed to the scheme be entitled to a fairer share of the surpluses.
In addition to the Committee’s recommendations, the APPG recently celebrated the publication of the “State of the Coalfields” report, commissioned by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. The CRT does fantastic work to breathe life back into our former coalfields, and I was proud to join the organisation to celebrate the launch. However, its findings only reiterate the necessity of the ICA’s recommendations. For example, the city-centric factor that I mentioned is backed up by the report’s findings that more older people live in our former coal- fields than younger people, with younger people graduating and moving away to cities to seek job opportunities and, sadly, not returning. These factors are pushing our former coalfields even further behind, as the employment gap causes an increase in benefit claimants and people having no choice but to commute to cities for work.
The report found that, among the four focus areas analysed, south Wales performed the worst for employment shortfall and for the number of out-of-work benefits claimants, which is of deep concern to me as a south Wales MP. Upon individual inspection we can see progress for our former coalfields, but they lag behind the rest of the UK. The report found that the average hourly earnings for former coalfield areas are 6% to 7% lower than the national average, which is shocking. We truly have a lot of work to do, but thanks to this fantastic report we have a way to do it, and a way to navigate it has been paved.
I understand more than most the importance of devolution and the power of giving local communities the autonomy to make change. However, in the case of coal tip safety, it is anomalous that the Welsh Government should be financially responsible for addressing a pre-devolution issue when other legacies of the coal industry, such as water pollution, gas leaks and pit shaft safety, are the responsibility of the UK Government-funded Coal Authority. Because of the landscape of the Welsh valleys, our communities are more at risk than those in any other part of the UK. The prospect of any repeat of the terrible tragedy of Aberfan is truly unthinkable. As a result, the burden of making coal tips safe has fallen disproportionately on the Welsh Government and local authorities in Wales. That cannot be fair.
When I spoke of values such as community, dignity and fairness, it was not in the vague, philosophical sense; these recommendations are the practical application of those values. Just as my father stood up for his community 40 years ago, it is incumbent upon us to stand up for our coalfield communities. We must take the next steps needed to ensure that they are fairer and more prosperous for the next 40 years.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to finish his speech?
Allan Dorans
I would, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you. I will take it slowly and try not to speak with too much passion.
The consequences of coalmine closures and deprivation in former coalmining communities are well documented. According to the 2020 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, coalfield areas are still over-represented among Scotland’s most disadvantaged communities. Of the 610 coalfield areas where data was gathered, 31% are among Scotland’s most deprived. However, in east Ayrshire, in my constituency, that figure was a shocking 40% in 2016, and it remains the same in 2020. Within the overall measures of deprivation, coalfield communities have lower incomes, worse health and lower education and employment outcomes than those in 80% of Scottish communities. Coalfield communities across the UK need and deserve far greater funding from the central Treasury to significantly increase access to health promotion and care, to provide the best schools and colleges and access to university, and to stimulate economic activity, with an emphasis on high skills and high pay.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust was launched in 1999 as an independent charity designed to fund projects that would increase access to employment opportunities, education and skills training, improve health and wellbeing and develop enterprise. It has commissioned two reports to examine how former coalfield areas compare with the rest of the country on a range of social and economic indicators. The most recent of these reports was published in 2019, and its findings shockingly include the fact that average life expectancy in the former coalfields is around a year less than the national average, and there is a greater incidence of long-term health problems.
Former coalfields continue to have large numbers of people of working age out of work and claiming incapacity benefits. Growth in the number of businesses was generally slower than in the rest of the UK and the employment rate in the coalfields was below the national average. All the coalfields of England, Scotland and Wales have an occupational structure that is skewed towards manual occupations and lower levels of high-skilled jobs. The findings are a damming indictment of how former coalfield communities have been neglected by successive Governments for the past 50 years. For those reasons alone, a concerted effort is required by the UK Parliament, the devolved Administrations and local councils. They must have a joint focus on development and improvement across the board in these communities.
Much has been made of the current Government’s levelling-up agenda, which is designed to address the long-standing problem of the UK’s regional economic disparities. Several funds have been set up under the levelling-up agenda, including the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the shared prosperity fund and investment zones. However, none are targeted specifically at former coalmining areas.
In June 2023 the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities published the report, “Next Steps in Levelling Up the Former Coalfields” with the aim of examining the needs of former coalfield communities and steering policies to improve the lives of residents. The report made 12 recommendations, covering economic development, public investment, infrastructure, environmental issues, housing and skills, all of which would make a significant difference to my constituency and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of those 12 recommendations so I will not list them all, but I say to him that I strongly agree with all of them. I ask him to indicate what progress has been or will be made in implementing them.
In conclusion, the time to recognise the contribution of mining communities over the centuries to the economy of the United Kingdom, and the hardship endured by so many in those communities, is now. I am grateful for the work of East Ayrshire Council, South Ayrshire Council, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and other publicly funded voluntary organisations and charities for their continuing work in restoring pride, a sense of community and hope to those communities. I also acknowledge the work carried out in my constituency by the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership, working with East Ayrshire Council and the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere, delivering a significant number of regeneration projects, including biodiversity and landscape outputs, people-engagement activities, local interest groups, training workshops and volunteer activities. However, that is not in itself enough to restore the former mining communities to the vibrant communities they once were.
The former coalmining communities, which once powered the industrial revolution and contributed immensely to the wealth of the United Kingdom, must now be prioritised, receive significant investment, and be supported and developed to ensure that they once again become thriving and sustainable communities able to face the future with hope, aspiration and confidence. I therefore call on the Government to significantly increase levelling-up funding, or preferably introduce new specific funding, and set aside the significant resources that are urgently needed to regenerate former coalmining communities and improve the lives and opportunities of the people in my community and across the country.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). I thank the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate. My hon. Friend spoke poignantly about the rich tapestry of community organisations that tie together coalfield communities. Although I was not around when the coalmine in Clara Vale, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), was open, I spent a lot of my youth going up there to visit family members. Whether it is the pit banner on the wall, the Methodist church or the community groups, the heritage of coalmining communities is alive and well in the north- east, and being championed by people like my hon. Friend the Member for Easington.
As the newest coalfield Member of Parliament, I have the distinct privilege of representing the entirety of the Selby super-pit, which in its time was regarded as the most technologically advanced coalmine in Europe. The last coalmine in my constituency was still producing coal within the last decade. Kellingley colliery—or the Big K, as it was known—was the last deep-pit coalmine to close in Britain, with the loss of over 600 jobs. So in Selby we know a thing or two about coal, and we are living through the consequences of what the industry’s end can bring, both for our communities, and for ex-mineworkers and their families. I would like to send special thanks to the Selby branch of the NUM advice service for all the work it does to advance its members’ interests.
We inherit a proud past in Selby, but we in this House need to consider the future that we hope to build as proud representatives of coalfield communities. Our work is twofold: to provide dignity, recognition and support to ex-mineworkers and their families; and to unlock the economic and social potential for future generations in areas, such as mine, where coal was once king.
Nowhere are those questions of justice more pressing than in relation to the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which many Members have spoken about so eloquently today. Since 1994, successive Governments have received over £4 billion from the scheme, and are due to receive at least another £1.9 billion in due course. Yet the mineworkers who built the profitability of Britain’s coal industry and the wealth of our entire nation have not gotten a fair share of its proceeds.
During the 2019 general election—since when, I should note, the Conservative party has received no democratic mandate from the electorate—Boris Johnson said categorically that the Tories would make sure that no
“miner signed up to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme is out of pocket…we will make sure all their cash is fully protected and returned, I have looked into it and we will ensure that’s done.”
That was a solemn, black-and-white, categorical assurance made by a Conservative Prime Minister to coalfield communities. It was the reason some mineworkers decided to vote for Mr Johnson’s party in 2019. It is the reason some Members on the Conservative Benches are sitting here at all.
Having collected his votes and gone back down to London, what did that Prime Minister proceed to do about the promises he had made to coalfield communities such as mine? Absolutely nothing. It is yet another damning example of the age-old Conservative habit of breaking promises made to northern communities in England and to the British people overall; a final kick in the teeth for mineworkers to endure. They have lived for 40 years with the legacy of Thatcherism and are faced with the indignity in retirement of being peddled Tory false hope. Meaningful MPS reform requires a Government with empathy and a desire to see that justice is done. That is why I am pleased to see the Labour party’s ambition to reform the scheme to provide ex-mineworkers with the dignity in retirement that they deserve.
But we cannot have dignity without our health. If I could encourage Ministers to take away one thing from this debate, it would be to try to bring greater compassion and greater speed to the assessment of ex-mineworkers for industrial illnesses by the Department for Work and Pensions. My team and my local NUM branch have been fighting hard for Mr Anthony Rock, who is receiving a percentage of his industrial injuries disablement benefit for pneumoconiosis, but not for his progressive massive fibrosis which is known to develop directly from his condition. There have been egregious and unacceptable delays from the DWP in the several claims that Mr Rock has made regarding his illness. He is becoming seriously unwell, so I would appreciate it if the Minister could meet me to discuss how we can advance his case as quickly as possible. I wish that Mr Rock’s case was an isolated one, but sadly his experience is all too common for mineworkers across the country. It is time for the DWP to shape up and take responsibility for treating mineworkers with the respect they deserve.
Finally, and on a note of optimism, I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Coalfield Regeneration Trust’s business park at the site of the former Kellingley colliery. It has managed to turn a site where 600 people lost their jobs into a thriving business centre for Yorkshire’s small and medium-sized enterprises, employing local young people in well-paid and skilled employment. That work must not just continue but expand and flourish, because it has been proven that it works and it benefits communities such as mine. The proposal by the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities and the CRT to return CGF and CEF funds to allow it to expand its work should receive extremely thoughtful consideration from Members across this House.
For places such as Selby, our value lies no longer in the coal beneath our feet, but in the spirit of our people and communities; a legacy bequeathed to us by our coalfield heritage. The industrial pride, skills, ingenuity, solidarity and communal spirit that are hardwired into such communities are some of the most potent tools we have to build a better future for our country, both back home in Yorkshire and across the length of Great Britain. It is our responsibility in this House to do all we can to empower coalfield communities to realise that enormous potential. I thank all Members from across the House who are doing incredible work to achieve that aim.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather), and I commend my good friend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate.
I am proud of my constituency, which has a rich and vibrant tapestry of mining heritage woven through it, not only in the towns and villages that make it up but in those of us who inhabit them today. From the very depths of the earth, our townspeople toiled to fuel the industrial revolution, shaping the landscape of our communities and leaving an everlasting mark on our collective consciousness. However, alongside the moments of triumph, we must also accept and confront the tragedies that have befallen our mining communities and families.
The Auchengeich pit disaster of 1959 will always stand as a poignant reminder of the dangers faced by men in the pursuit of bread for the table. Every year I am humbled and honoured to stand alongside the former councillor Willie Doolan and all the members of the local committee as we commemorate that mining disaster, remembering the men who were lost and their surviving families, many of whom still live in the local area today. Their tireless efforts to ensure that the tragedy of the Auchengeich disaster is never forgotten is a testament to the resilience and strength of our community, and I thank each and every one of them for all that they do. Similarly, the Cardowan Colliery disaster of 1932 gives us all a stark reminder of the human cost of industrial progress. The ongoing work of my constituents Alice Morton and Campbell Provans in organising a memorial service to commemorate the lives lost in that devastating event is, I am sure, always greatly appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.
As the grandson of a miner, I was raised on stories of the pit and its men, of the graft and the toil, and of the togetherness and camaraderie that we have heard so much about today. My grandad was out of the pits by the time I came along, but the scars of pit life remained. If I listen quietly enough, I can still hear his cough today; but not even the damage of lungs ravaged by silicosis could dampen his love and affection for his mining friends and comrades.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am sorry that I have not been able to take part fully in the debate, but I have a copy of a census return that contains the first mention of the Grants from Ulster having settled in Scotland. My great-grandfather, at the age of 19, came over to work in a pit not far from my hon. Friend’s constituency. My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the appalling disasters that have affected the mines in his constituency, as well as my constituency and others. Does he agree that there should be a greater recognition of the almost unbelievable bravery shown by miners who went back into burning pits to look for their friends? Is it not time that we gave them the recognition that their heroism deserves?
Steven Bonnar
My hon. Friend has made an important point. Every time I attend the commemorations and hear the real, lived stories, I wonder why there are not commemorations all over the UK to honour those brave, brave men and, indeed, their families.
I hope that friends on both sides of the House will accept that the Scottish National party will always stand up in unwavering solidarity with those who chose to strike during the tumultuous times of the past. We recognise the hardships endured by miners and their families, who often faced financial hardship and societal stigma as a result of their principled stance. The fact that they stood tall in the face of adversity, fighting not only for their own livelihoods but for the future of generations to come, will never be forgotten or underestimated by any of us on these Benches, or, indeed, in the mining communities the length and breadth of Scotland, so it is with a heavy heart that we must acknowledge the neglect and disregard shown by the UK Government towards this shared history.
The Scottish Government, with the powers available to them, have taken significant steps to alleviate the burdens being carried by our mining communities. Through the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, Scotland became the first of the four nations of the UK to offer a collective and automatic pardon to those convicted during the strike. That landmark legislation serves as a beacon of reconciliation, offering some solace to those who bore the scars of past injustice. It is imperative that the UK Government now follow suit, taking responsibility for the actions of the National Coal Board and providing compensation for those affected. It would be too late for my grandad, with his silicosis-scarred lungs, but there are people who could benefit, and it is time that the Government put their house in order and sorted this out. I hope that the Minister will comment on that later. While the Scottish Government have done what they can within their powers, the responsibility for devising a compensation scheme rests squarely with the Government in this place.
We also continue to press for a UK-wide public inquiry into the strike, ensuring that the voices of miners and their families are heard and their grievances addressed. Only through collective action and unity can we achieve meaningful change and deliver justice to those who have been denied it for so long. As we look to the future, we must ensure that no community is left behind in the transition to a more sustainable economy.
The recent revelation that the fantastic levelling-up bid made by the Summerlee Museum of Scottish Industrial Life, a heritage museum in Coatbridge, was rejected by this place is a stark reminder of the indifference with which our mining heritage is still treated by this Government and, indeed, this House. The project would have secured the preservation of our historical mining past, well into our future, and its rejection speaks volumes about the lack of recognition afforded to the sacrifices made by generations of miners and their families.
In the face of neglect and indifference, we must stand firm in defence of our mining heritage. We on these Benches demand that the Government recognise the importance of preserving our shared history, and provide the necessary support to ensure that future generations can learn from the sacrifices of the past. Let us together ensure that the legacy of our mining communities is never forgotten, and that the voices of those who came before us continue to resonate through the halls of history.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on the work that he did to secure the debate, and for his admirable opening speech.
According to the excellent report “The State of the Coalfields 2024”, commissioned by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the former coalfields account for 8% of the population in England, 10% in Scotland and 25% in Wales. That gives us an idea of the scale in Wales —one in four people there live in a former coalfield area—and of the importance of today’s debate.
Mining has been a dominant part of Welsh life for generations. My grandfather was a miner, my uncle was a miner, and my father was a Bevin boy who was sent down the local pit during the second world war. There were mines across my constituency from the sea on one side to the sea on the other—Hendy, Llangennech, Bynea, Llwynhendy, Tumble, Cross Hands, Pontyberem, Ponthenri and Pontyates, and in Llanelli itself and Burry Port, with coal being exported from those two busy ports —and, of course, mining has shaped our politics.
My predecessor as MP for Llanelli, the great Jim Griffiths, spoke passionately from his own experience of the hardship that he saw in the mining communities in which he was brought up—the effects of unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, sickness and industrial injury—and took up the fight to bring about the reforms that were needed to help those who fell on hard times. He spoke and wrote about “The Price Wales Pays for Poverty”: maternal mortality, malnutrition, overcrowding, condemned housing, unemployment, silicosis, and the terrible affliction of tuberculosis. He also highlighted the wealth taken from Wales by coal owners, royalty owners and landlords, and demanded a proper response and resources to deal with the country's problems.
When serving in the 1945 Labour Government, Jim Griffiths introduced the Family Allowances Act 1945, under which money was paid directly to mothers. He subsequently introduced the National Insurance Act 1946 and an Act close to his heart, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which was very much born out of the suffering and difficulties of injured miners that he had witnessed and which introduced extra benefits for people injured at work. That Act was universal, in that it covered the entire workforce. It provided injury benefit for six months, disability benefit for the permanently injured, and a death benefit for dependants. It also set up tribunals to assess cases, rather than claimants’ having to take on all the responsibility for pushing their own cases.
Now, some 80 years later and some 40 years on from the miners’ strike, as is documented in the report I mentioned earlier, we have shockingly not eliminated all the problems. There are still high levels of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment and sickness in former mining areas, and there is still much to be done to enable those areas to enjoy the same levels of wealth as others. We know of many of the problems that our former mining communities face, scattered as they are in south Wales up and down steep valleys. Many are in what are now pleasant rural locations, and some contain quite spacious council or former council-owned properties, but their location was clearly intended to be close to the mines where people worked. Now, investors, developers and young people all want to be near the main arteries or in the main towns, and it is so much more difficult to attract inward investment into the more remote mining communities. Furthermore, they are often spread out in different locations along the valley, making it very difficult to provide services, and often there is a considerable distance up or down the valley to get to the most basic of facilities, such as doctors’ surgeries or shops. Nowadays, there are more opportunities for people to work remotely and to set up businesses that use the internet, but some of our mining communities also suffer from inadequate broadband speeds and a poor mobile phone signal.
I want to highlight some specific problems, starting with my serious concerns about the drop in quality of former miners’ concessionary coal. I have met miners in my area who used to receive good-quality smokeless coal, but now receive very poor-quality coal, which is causing considerable problems and expense. The coal is blocking up chimneys, meaning that people have to get their chimneys swept more often and at additional expense, and the fumes and fine ash that it gives off pose serious health risks. In fact, the smell and the fumes that emerge from chimneys are so bad that they are causing neighbours down the street to complain about the smoke.
When I looked into this issue, I found that there was not an isolated batch of coal and that the problem is widespread. On contacting Wayne Thomas of the South Wales NUM, I learned that as stockpiles of anthracite had been run down, coal of an inferior quality was supplied by Russia. Because of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia, which I fully support, the supply was halted and an alternative source had to be found. I understand that the coal now comes from Peru and is supplied in a chimney- compressed duff, using molasses as a binding agent. The NUM says that such coal gives off a very fine ash, which causes respiratory problem—obviously not good for ex-miners, many of whom already have breathing problems.
Across the UK, the complaints are similar to those of former miners in my area, who complain that the smoke from chimneys smells funny and that the coal causes blockages. The NUM has twice met the head of the coal liabilities unit at the Department for Business and Trade to discuss this matter, but there has been no news of any improved source, and better sources must be found. I say to the Minister that miners have worked hard in a difficult and dangerous job, and that they are entitled to receive decent concessionary coal. It is shocking that former miners, many of whom are elderly, are now being given poisonous, poor-quality coal, which gives off fumes and ash that are bad for their health, and which clogs up their chimneys. As a matter of urgency, I beg him to do everything he can to source decent coal for our former miners. It is a Government responsibility.
Turning to the miners’ pensions, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for their work. I hope the Minister is aware of the former BEIS Committee’s report on the mineworkers pension scheme and its recommendations—namely, that the 50/50 surplus sharing arrangements should be comprehensively reviewed to ensure that miners get their fair share, and that the £1.2 billion reserve fund should be given back to the pensioners immediately. It is now three years since that report, and former miners are not getting any younger, but there has still not been any action from the Government. I ask the Minister to look again at the scheme, and to ensure that miners get their fair share.
I turn now to the coal tip legacy. I was a very impressionable small child at the time of the Aberfan coal disaster on 21 October 1966. I was the same age as some of the children buried under the slag heap as it engulfed the school, and I will never forget the images on our black-and-white telly of fathers desperately trying to dig out their children. Following that, we saw the gradual remediation of the tips. Things began to look better and greener, but with the increased frequency of more violent weather events, it is now clear that the job is not done. As we saw all too vividly in the Rhondda a couple of years ago, there is still a lot more work to be done to ensure that the tips are safe.
This is a legacy from pre-devolution times. The slag heaps were produced as a result of mining coal to fuel the factories that filled the coffers of the UK Treasury, and the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure that every tip in Wales is made safe. We in Carmarthenshire are relatively lucky, with fewer and less risky tips than in the valleys further east, where urgent investment is needed. It was very disappointing that there was no mention of any funding in the spring Budget, and I ask the Minister to take this message back to the Chancellor.
I turn to Orgreave. On 18 June, we will mark 40 years since we saw the truly shocking scenes of police attacking miners at Orgreave, and we need a proper inquiry into what happened that day. It is very disappointing that the Government have not instigated such an inquiry, even after the revelations about South Yorkshire police in Bishop James Jones’s Hillsborough report. However, we need not only an inquiry into Orgreave, but a proper Hillsborough law. It is not enough for the Government’s belated response to the Hillsborough report in December last year to espouse the introduction of a voluntary charter, an independent public advocate and a code of ethical policing. Instead, we need a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, and to guarantee fairer funding to enable those affected by a major tragedy to challenge public institutions. I urge the Minister to set up an inquiry into Orgreave, and to adopt a full Hillsborough law.
I want to say a few words about a just transition to the industries of the future, which is the exact opposite of what we saw in the 1980s, when it was clear that the Thatcher Government wanted to destroy the coal industry. However, it was not just the coal industry that was decimated. We saw the closure of the big steel plant in my constituency and numerous other closures across the country, resulting in areas of mass unemployment, with communities feeling that they had been thrown on the scrapheap. The legacy remains till this day, as documented in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust report.
It does not have to be like this. Of course we want to make progress and to harness technology to our advantage —whether it is the spinning mills of the 18th century, motorised transport, robots on the production line, artificial intelligence, the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, or the change from blast furnace steel production to green primary steelmaking—but it should be a just transition, with training and jobs for workers, and investment in the new green industry of the future. That is why it is so disappointing to see the Government’s half-hearted approach to the future of the steel industry. We welcome investment in the electric arc furnace, but there is a refusal to think bigger and to invest in the green primary steelmaking of the future, leaving thousands of workers to lose their jobs. It is a devastating blow for Port Talbot and, yet again, the surrounding former coalfield communities.
We in the Labour party are determined to see a just transition to the industry of the future, with proper investment through our proposed national wealth fund, the upskilling of workers and the creation of quality jobs. Never again do we want to see workers thrown on the scrapheap and communities devastated.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. After Kevan Jones, we will have the Front-Bench contributions and then the wind-up from Grahame Morris.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my Durham colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing this afternoon’s important debate. For the last 23 years, I have had the privilege of representing North Durham, which was part of the once mighty Durham coalfield. Over those 23 years, I have seen many changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) spoke about the close-knit tradition of mining communities—not just in County Durham, but in his own area in Northumberland. Having grown up as the son of a miner, I am familiar with that close-knit tradition and the reliability of work that there was in such communities. However, I do not look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, because, to use a Hobbesian phrase, life was nasty, brutish and short for many people. There was nothing romantic about the death rates, which we just accepted as the price of coal, but many of the communities in my constituency—the town of Stanley, for example—were built on coal. The surrounding villages, such as Craghead, Sacriston and others, were all built because of coalmining. Their economic existence was coalmining. When that was finally taken away in 1985, when the last pits closed, the economic heart was ripped out of those communities overnight, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate.
Today, people would not recognise where the mining industry was based in North Durham unless they know the history of the area. They would certainly not know where the pit was in the South Yorkshire village where I grew up if they did not know the history of that village. That unseen legacy has cast a long shadow over many mining communities. I congratulate the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on its excellent report on the state of coalfield communities in 2020. It is a superb piece of work.
When I was first elected, the legacy of heavy industry, and certainly coalmining, was evident in my constituency. People who had worked underground their whole life suffered from not only debilitating lung disease, but other physical conditions related to heavy industry. Sadly, that generation is increasingly no longer with us.
After that social fabric was taken out of County Durham, we had unemployment, deprivation and poverty and, as happens in many communities, crime and drugs filled the gap. When I was first elected, I described North Durham as a rural constituency with urban problems and, as in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington and for Wansbeck, the legacy of drug abuse, for example, is still there today. This health inequality is now affecting a lost generation of younger people born in the 1980s, some now in their 40s, who never got into proper paid employment.
The report from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust speaks for itself. Life expectancy in coalfield communities is 82 for women, as opposed to 85 in the south-east of England, and 78 for men, as opposed to 81 in the south-east of England. The other thing that appals me—I have spoken about this before, and I feel very passionately about it—is that, in a wealthy country, life expectancy in County Durham has gone down over the last 10 years, which is an absolute disgrace. The report also outlines that, in 2021, the proportion of the population reporting bad or very bad health was 7.1% in former coalfield areas, compared with 4.2% in the south-east of England and 4.3% in London.
We have a legacy of ill health. Health professionals in County Durham tell me that the age at which people access intensive healthcare is now in their mid-to-late 50s. That puts extra pressure on our health services, which is not reflected in the funding. In addition, my constituency is now in the commuter belt for Tyneside and other areas, which is very difficult for people in many outlying communities unless they have access to a car. Young people do not have aspiration, which is difficult to raise, to get into good, well-paid employment. Warehousing and other low-skilled or semi-skilled work are no replacement for the high-quality jobs that we used to have in the coalfields.
We have heard a lot of talk from the Government about levelling up. I have said it before and will say it again: levelling up is a complete con. It is not a serious measure to level up Britain. If it were, the communities highlighted by the report would be at the top of the list. It is all about capital projects and pork barrel politics, basically setting areas against one another. Councils have spent millions of pounds, certainly in County Durham’s case, submitting bids that were never going to succeed. The only successful bid from County Durham was in Bishop Auckland, which happened to have a Conservative Member of Parliament, getting half a bypass in the process.
Levelling up has not replaced the £240 million that the Government have taken out of Durham County Council’s core funding by shifting the tax base on to local council tax payers. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington spoke about the low council tax base in County Durham, where 60% of properties are in band A, which means that we cannot raise money.
Additionally, we need extra services for our growing elderly population and our growing number of looked-after children. Is there a relationship between the closure of Sure Start centres, which offered early intervention for families, and the number of looked-after children who are coming back into care? It does not take a genius to work out that the two are related, and the Government have slowly woken up to that fact and are now reintroducing children’s centres.
We also had access to European regional development funding. Again, it was promised that no region would lose out, but we have. That money automatically came to areas like the north-east, and it did some fantastic work. It did not fixate on capital projects, at which the local Member of Parliament or whoever wanted to be elected could open a plaque; it was about employment and training. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on DurhamWorks, which has been very good at getting young people who are not in education, employment or training back into work.
Levelling up has been a complete con, and we need that investment if we are to make a real change to health, employment and training. The Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag when he stood for the leadership of the Tory party and boasted that he would take money away from areas like mine and redistribute it to leafier parts of the south-east of England. That is exactly what has happened, and the idea that the Government can take the needs-based element out of this is absolutely disgraceful. The idea that they can give coalfield areas the odd £20 million here and there to replace the hundreds of millions of pounds that they have lost in local government funding, ERDF funding and other funding is just a con.
I look back to the last Labour Government with clear eyes. County Durham had five new schools, three new health centres, a new hospital and two new further education colleges. That is real investment in a community. I am also proud that, in government, we paid compensation to people with COPD, which should have been done many years earlier. It took a Labour Government to do that.
We need a radical change of approach, which no one can foresee at the fag end of this Parliament. It will only happen with the election of a Labour Government who will reprioritise the needs of individuals. Without that, the legacy of limited employment opportunities and ill health in our coalmining communities will continue, not just for those who worked in the industry but for generations to come. In a wealthy country like Britain, it is a national scandal that we should leave such communities to suffer in this way.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leigh (James Grundy) on securing this excellent debate, in which we have heard some common themes. I also thank the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for driving forward its excellent work.
I am struck by the sense of pride expressed by everyone who has taken part in this debate, whether it is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who has first-hand experience at the coalface, or the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) who, being chronologically challenged through no fault of his own, has no such experience, although that does not diminish how we all feel about the communities we represent. I grew up in a mining community, and that sense of community is part of us, which is very evident from everyone who has taken part today.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to sum up this debate for the Scottish National party. As Members will probably be aware, I have made many contributions in this Chamber about my constituency and its rich mining history, which dates back to the 12th century, when the monks at Newbattle abbey first began extracting coal. By the 20th century, mining was an integral part of my community’s way of life. Midlothian was home to a range of pits, with probably the best known being Bilston Glen and Monktonhall. We also had the first Victorian super-pit, the Lady Victoria, which is still the home of the National Mining Museum Scotland. Again, I extend an invitation to Members to visit it, as it is an excellent facility. It was opened by my predecessor, David Hamilton, also a former miner. It was the UK’s first single facility for understanding and commemorating the mining industry and so is an excellent attraction that people can come to see any time they visit Midlothian.
We heard a lot today about the fact that we are marking the 40th anniversary of the miners’ strike of the 1980s, which left a scar in many communities across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Its unique set of circumstances saw entire communities defending their way of life and their jobs against a UK Tory Government who seemed determined to bring them to their knees and deployed the forces of the state to meet that end. As was narrated in the John Scott KC review in 2020, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government, some miners were dismissed notwithstanding the fact that they had been admonished in court. Dismissal brought with it financial hardship, with loss of income and pension rights, and difficulties for many in obtaining future employment. Above all, miners and their families lost their good name and their respectability as honest hard-working men doing dangerous jobs. That loss was perhaps the deepest one, cutting them hardest and being the hardest to bear.
The corrosive and bitter scars left by the impact of that Thatcher Government on once-proud mining communities, which felt abandoned by the state, are there for all to see. That is why I, along with many others, have called many times for a full inquiry into exactly what happened at that time. We have heard the calls for justice for Orgreave again today. We need to understand, and our communities need to understand, what political influence was exerted at that time and what political interference took place in respect of the actions and decisions of Thatcher’s Government.
Peter Grant
I recall realising at the time that Ian MacGregor, the chair of the National Coal Board, had worked out that if a way could be found to sack somebody for gross misconduct, that would be a lot cheaper than paying them the redundancy payments to which they were entitled. Does my hon. Friend believe that one day we will find that that was a matter of policy on behalf of the NCB?
Owen Thompson
I truly hope that we do, because only when we get the answers to these questions—the honest answers from Government—can our communities and those directly involved truly move forward. I accept that we are not talking about decisions made by this Government, but it would be for them to take the opportunity to start that inquiry so that we can get those answers.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
We are about to have a debate about BBC bias. I was a young correspondent at that time and I recall just how biased a lot of the coverage was. We constantly saw things from the police’s point of view, but never saw things from the miners’ point of view. What lessons does my hon. Friend think there are to learn from any inquiry on press and media coverage during that strike?
Owen Thompson
As we heard from others earlier in the debate, it is important that all sides are reflected and that the reality of the situation is reflected. I am perhaps proud to say that I am too young to remember watching much of the coverage live at the time, although I have watched the more recent documentaries, so I cannot speak directly about my experiences of what was broadcast at the time.
That moves me on to how proud I am that the Scottish Parliament has—unanimously, I believe—introduced a pardon for miners who were convicted of certain offences during the miners’ strike. However, I am frustrated that we have not seen more action taken to do the same here. Miners and those who were involved in the strike in my constituency, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), and in those of other colleagues in Scotland, cannot get the compensation that I feel they deserve until we have a UK-wide pardon in place.
That is why I took the unusual step of introducing my Miners’ Strike (Pardons) Bill in this place. I hope that Members across the Chamber will support it. It has been drafted, so all the Government need to do is support it and we could put that pardon in place to mirror the one established by the Scottish Government. I hope we will see that happen. I genuinely hope that if this Government do not do that, the next one will. However, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Islington North about my Bill in December and I have not yet received a response. [Interruption.] Sorry, not Islington North—I meant the leader of the Labour party. I can’t keep up with these London constituencies! I have had no reply from him in support of my Bill and that is deeply disappointing. I hope that enough colleagues on the Labour Benches will have a word in his ear to make sure that that pardon is introduced.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd highlighted the work of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities and the “State of the Coalfields 2024” report. That excellent report has gone into a lot of depth on the issues that our coalfield communities still face. The inquiry received more than 70 submissions from across Scotland, England and Wales. I am glad that the Scottish Government, local authorities, and the voluntary and community sectors all contributed to that. It is important that where we have an evidence base such as this, we look at it in a lot of detail and understand better what it means for each of our communities.
Like so many others, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of levelling up and the fact that for many of our communities, it feels as though that has simply been a Government slogan. We need funding to shore up our coalfield communities and stop them falling further behind. I have always said that there needs to be a more even and balanced distribution of the UK’s prosperity; we cannot just have it all driven into one place, and our coalfields need it far more than most. The pit closures left a lasting legacy of social and economic damage. That resulted from decisions made in this place and it is up to this place to do much, much more to deal with it. Midlothian and other mining communities must benefit from any new funds and initiatives that could help to boost recovery.
Finally, I come to another issue that has been touched on by many Members: the miners’ pension. I commend the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her work in driving forward the review on that. It is long overdue that these recommendations are implemented; the BEIS Committee report from 2021 needs to be implemented now. Our miners deserve fairness. The 50% surplus arrangement has been in place since 1994. We have heard about figures such as £4.8 billion and rising, without even adjusting it for inflation. That money should be going to our miners—at the very least, it should be going into our coalfield communities. It is outrageous that it is taking so long to implement this. We need it to happen as soon as possible.
A number of miners, including my constituent Ally, have encountered a situation where they were mis-sold pension products from their miners’ pensions. Despite trying endlessly to get an outcome on that, they have found that the companies involved have often gone bust and tracking them down is a massive issue for anyone. I ask the Minister to relay to the Treasury the need for greater understanding of the impact this is having on former miners and the need for a further look at what is possible when that situation arises. I will certainly continue to try to bring that about.
Today’s debate has been excellent. It has shown the spirit that is still there in our mining communities; it is not going away any time soon and we will all continue to campaign for justice for our miners.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for securing this debate.
I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Easington, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). All of them spoke about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s “State of the Coalfields 2024” report and the miners’ pension scheme. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, not least because these issues are deeply personal for my constituents, as they are for Members from across coalfield communities.
It would be difficult to overstate the impact of the coal industry on my constituency, and on the north-east as a whole. Its history is woven into the fabric of our community. Many towns and villages owe their existence to the pit. Today, statues and colliery wheels commemorate our past, and community facilities set up to serve mining families remain in use. In my constituency, there were many collieries, from Chopwell to Kibblesworth and from Greenside to Bewicke Main. Each pit was surrounded by a community in which coal was not just a job, but a way of life. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I could not go without mentioning the annual big meeting, the Durham miners’ gala. Each year, brilliant flying banners and marching brass bands bring together thousands in our region to celebrate working-class life and solidarity.
So far, I have talked about my local area, but the mining history of the UK stretches far and wide, from the coalfields in Lanarkshire to mines in the midlands, on to the Welsh valleys and all the way down to Kent.
Liz Twist
Indeed. I noticed the similarities in what the hon. Member said between his community and our coalmining communities.
Let us be clear that the reality of working down the pit was far from romantic. Miners toiled in brutal working conditions, doing backbreaking work in the near darkness. As we have heard, many people lost their lives in disasters or developed industrial diseases, such as pneumoconiosis, as a result of their work. It is important that we remember and pay tribute to them.
Mining communities knew better than anyone that this work was tough and dangerous, but whole ways of life were built around the pits. Their rapid closures caused mass upheaval, the consequences of which are still felt to this day. As the reports from the Industrial Communities Alliance have highlighted, former coalfield areas still suffer from a lack of skilled, well-paid jobs, as well as from high levels of economic inactivity. While employment rates have improved since the days of mass unemployment, many people still feel there are few meaningful and secure alternatives to the work that was once available.
Labour is determined that we will not abandon our communities to the whims of industrial change. Through our green prosperity plan, we will seize the opportunities of energy transition to deliver economic justice and rebuild the strength of our industrial heartlands. We will create secure, clean jobs, backed by strong trade unions, with individual and collective rights guaranteed for all workers. Our former mining communities powered us through the industrial revolution, and it is not right that many people within them are forced to rely on insecure, zero-hours contracts, or left vulnerable to fire and rehire. That is why Labour’s new deal for working people will put an end to those practices and build our economy from the bottom up, and the middle out, to deliver a high-growth, high-wage economy for all.
This Government came to power talking about levelling up, but inequalities remain as stark as ever. A report from the APPG on coalfield communities, in partnership with the Industrial Communities Alliance, speaks of the failure of the current approach to deliver for former coalfield areas. Pots allocated by competitive bidding are too haphazard and too short term to allow for the developments that are needed to transform former industrial sites. Coalfield communities must be allowed to come together, and to learn from each other, not made to compete like contestants on “Dragons’ Den”.
Not only must we deliver a better future for our communities, but we must right the wrongs of the past. As we have heard, the party in Government have broken promises about the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Does the Minister think it is fair that the Government make vast amounts of money from the current arrangement, while former miners struggle to make ends meet? Let me be clear: this is a historic injustice that should never have taken place, and the Government should not be in the business of profiting off mineworkers’ pensions.
After so many years of silence from Parliament on this issue, the BEIS Committee inquiry was very welcome. The Labour party will work with mineworkers and their families to right this wrong, and we will set out our full plans on this by the time of the election. People should be in no doubt that we will deliver justice for mineworkers and their families with the urgency required.
We must never shrug off injustice. We all remember the violent images of the strike in 1984 and 1985, perhaps no more so than the sight of Lesley Boulton cowering in the face of a police truncheon at the Orgreave coking plant. Earlier this year, new footage from Orgreave was shown in a Channel 4 documentary, which clearly set out the police brutality and allegations of a cover-up. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), considered the case for an inquiry, but it seems that the Government no longer think that they have any lessons to learn. Their memories are clearly short. The Labour party has long supported a full investigation or inquiry into the events at Orgreave, and we are committed to putting a new Hillsborough law on to the statute book to prevent future injustices. I hope the Minister shares my conviction that the truth must be heard.
Our coalmining days may be behind us, but we must not forget the communities that formed around them. They were the engine that powered Britain’s industrial success, and we owe it to them that they should share in the rewards.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is genuinely a great pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government in this important area of policy. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I welcome the focus on this issue. I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group, its current chair, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and all those who are involved, or who have previously been involved, for raising these issues. We might not agree on all elements, but across the House we all agree that this is an important subject that we need to debate.
I particularly welcome the debate because I also have the privilege of representing a coalfield seat, North East Derbyshire, the home of Ireland, Williamthorpe, Renishaw Park, Hartington and Park House, where, just a century ago, tens of thousands of men worked. Many colleagues have outlined their experiences today; it is a privilege to know that our ancestors went down those pits every single day. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) that this work was tough and dangerous. Not a single member of my family, or any of the people I have had the privilege of representing for seven years, has failed to remind me how difficult mining was. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members have had similar conversations.
Eckington drift mine, the last drift mine in my constituency, closed only five years ago. Contrary to what we heard in some contributions, in my constituency we regularly celebrate our mining legacy, from the recent openings of memorials for High Moor and Westhorpe collieries, from Pat Bone’s work at the Killamarsh Heritage Society to attending a remembrance service for the terrible loss of 17 souls in 1973 Markham colliery disaster. In a few weeks, I hope, with my family, to add my ancestors’ names to the Eckington mining memorial, which Paul Burdett and his team have so kindly put in one of the towns in North East Derbyshire.
As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) indicated, my family was also deeply steeped in this legacy, going back around 10 generations. As far back as the censuses go, we were miners or hewers. My mum’s maiden name is literally Collier. Both my grandfathers worked down the mines, including my mum’s dad who worked for a time at Westthorpe and High Moor in the area that I now have the privilege to represent. Like so many of the people there, both of their lives were cut short. I managed to know my maternal grandfather for only seven years before he died of the injuries that he had suffered down the pit in the 1940s, including losing a limb. I never knew my other grandad—he died seven years before I was born. So I share the acute sense of link with this and agree that this is an area in which we need to do more.
When I speak from this Dispatch Box, I do so with great pride on behalf of mining communities and my own family, but it is pride tinged with a little bit of sadness. I am afraid that I was not intending to talk about this, but I think that it is important that I do so. I do not particularly want to bring party politics into this, but I think that party politics has already been brought into this quite significantly over the course of this debate.
Many strong points have been made today by colleagues across the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) that, at times, CISWO does not discharge what we all hope it would do, and I shall certainly pass that back to my colleagues in the relevant Department. I agree with most Members who said that there is more to do. I am interested in the concern of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) about the quality of coal, which I shall take up with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade and ask them to look at that in further detail—as much as they are able to do so.
However, I do think that some of the language has been genuinely loose today. The hon. Member for Wansbeck talked about opposing absolutely everything that the Conservative party does. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about things being “callous”, or about how the Government chooses “destruction”. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about “indifference”. There is a place for rhetoric and a place for hyperbole—
Several hon. Members rose—
Lee Rowley
I am absolutely not going to take any interventions. I have listened to the grievances of Opposition Members for three hours, and it is now time for them to hear the alternative.
Labour does not own the story of mining in our country. Labour does not get to reset the narrative in the way that it has sought to do today. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) talked about a Government of empathy. Labour does not get to disregard the settled pension arrangements—arrangements defended by the Labour party for 13 years when they sat on the Government Benches. In 2008, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—he was in his place a moment ago—was in charge of his Department, junior Ministers were sent out to answer written questions to that effect. Labour does not get to reset the agenda on that. It certainly does not get to repeatedly let down mining communities for decades, to the extent where those communities—
Lee Rowley
I will not give way. I have listened for three hours to the Labour party’s grievances.
Labour does not get to set the narrative, having let down mining communities for 13 years, to the extent that those mining communities send to this place people such as myself and many of those who are sitting behind me right now. People come up to us and say that we have done more in four years than the Labour party managed in 40. Labour does not get to reset that agenda.
Today, so many Labour Members have rightly drawn on their community’s history as part of their speeches, just as I am doing, and I shall draw a little bit more on mine. I want to refer in particular to one of my predecessors who sat in this place for North East Derbyshire—but not my Benches. He joined this place not as a member of the Labour party, but he was a former executive member of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. He built his career in mining. I will pass his statue when I go home today. He did not join here as a Labour Member, but he felt forced to join the party because he was a miner. In the end, though, he left the Labour party. That is a story of our times in these communities Our mining heritage is shared; it is not party political. I yield to no one in this place when it comes to the proud legacy that mining has provided for my community and my family; it is not just owned by one group of us here. That is why we turn now to some of the points that have been raised.
Many Members have talked about levelling up. I accept that there is more to do in that area. We have always indicated that levelling up is a long-term initiative that will take time to work, but at least this Government have made progress.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady had many minutes in which to set out her view, and now I will respond to it.
The hon. Member for Easington talked about the Government continuing to undermine the local community, choosing to invest elsewhere. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that, sadly, levelling up was just a slogan. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about it being a con. Well, let us list a few levelling- up projects. Let us pick some areas totally at random. Shall we pick Easington, covered by the north-east investment zone? Across the county, the share from the UK shared prosperity fund has been £31 million, with £750,000 for the town accelerator fund. Let us pick St Helens. From the English city regional capital regeneration funding there has been £7.2 million for St Helens manufacturing, £25 million for a town deal, and a long-term plan for towns, covering Newton-le-Willows.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East wishes to speak again. Barnsley has received a share of £39 million from the UK shared prosperity fund—[Interruption.]— £10 million for Barnsley Futures, £500,000 for a town accelerator and a future high streets fund of £15.6 million. What about the hon. Member for City of Durham? Durham has had £281,000 for Redhills Revealed through the community ownership fund, and a share of £31 million from the UK SPF. What about the hon. Member for Wansbeck? Wansbeck has received £16 million for town centre regeneration in Ashington, a share of £31 million from the UK SPF, and from the north-east investment zone a share of £47 million.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said that Government support never comes—except it did come, with a levelling-up partnership, £6 million for the future high streets fund, and £20 million for the South Shields riverside transformation. What about the hon. Member for Pontypridd? Pontypridd received £5 million from the levelling-up fund, and £14 million for the A4119 dualling scheme. What about the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty? Selby received a share of £17 million from the UK SPF. What about the hon. Member for Llanelli? There has been £15 million for regenerating Llanelli. The list goes on and on. [Interruption.]
The reason Opposition Members do not want to hear this is because their narrative does not work. Mining communities have had a significant amount of attention from this Government—[Interruption.]—and I am extremely proud to represent a mining community. Where were we left after that heat rather than light? This is a very important subject, which we share in. Even though I have had to set the record straight on a number of areas, there were some genuinely useful contributions. There is a need to remember, but not to dwell, because the mining community that I have the privilege to represent wants to look forward, not back. It wants to celebrate its history, but to be known for its potential, opportunity and renewal. The past is what we inherit, but the future is what we build. It is the future that this Government will continue to build, to ensure that mining communities such as mine, and everybody’s in this place, continue to prosper and thrive.
Grahame Morris
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and Madam Deputy Speaker for your admirable chairing of this very good debate? I thank my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), for his work behind the scenes to secure enough colleagues’ signatures to get the debate. More than 30 MPs supported it, and 16 made a speech or intervened. I think we had some excellent contributions, particularly from Opposition Members—obviously I am biased—although there were some very good ones from across the whole House. I thank the lobbyists who came down yesterday from the national mineworkers’ pension scheme—my constituents John Trewhitt, Bert Moncur and Ted Slavin, who made the journey and lobbied Downing Street and Parliament about the anomaly with the mineworkers’ pension surplus.
I did not agree with the Minister’s analysis. I urge him to act with alacrity—I have looked that up; it means physical quickness, coupled with eagerness or enthusiasm —in addressing the issues that have been raised. I thank the respective Front Benchers, and I thank those on the Labour Front Bench for their commitment to mineworkers’ pensions. There is a big job of work to do. I thank everyone for their participation today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As a good Welshman, I am honoured to put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered miners and mining communities.
BBC Mid-term Charter Review
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the BBC mid-term charter review.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate on the BBC charter and its performance. I must add that my application was supported by no fewer than 33 colleagues from across the House. Good weather, a one-line Whip and local election fatigue, I suspect, have intervened, but have not diminished the importance of the debate to all those voters who watch and hear the BBC and pay for it, and for whom I speak today.
The reason for my proposing this debate is that the Government’s mid-term review of 22 January 2024 was only announced by written ministerial statement and not on the Floor of the House itself, and therefore was not properly discussed. The question I will deal with is whether this mid-term review satisfies the genuine concerns about the manner in which the charter should operate.
I was somewhat involved in the 2015 charter review that led to the new charter, in that I proposed a defined new purpose for the charter specifically on the question of impartiality, which was inserted. I also proposed a conditional licence on the impartiality issue as long ago as the debate on the Broadcasting Act 1990 for broadcasting licence holders, which was incorporated in the Act—so at least I have been consistent.
The new charter provided that the BBC would be governed by a new unitary board and regulation would pass to Ofcom as an external and independent regulator. The question is whether that has worked effectively in delivering for licence fee payers in the national interest, by strengthening the oversight of the BBC’s complaints procedure with proper independence and enabling Ofcom to regulate the BBC’s online public service. The Government tell us in their review that
“impartiality is core to the BBC’s responsibilities under the Charter”.
The BBC ran a £220 million deficit in 2022-23, with an annual income, believe it or not, of £5.7 billion and operating costs of £5.9 billion. In comparison, the democratically elected House of Commons, our bastion of freedom and accountability, together with the House of Lords, merely costs around £847 million a year. Given that the BBC has a massive influence on public opinion and is unelected, that makes the rule of impartiality fundamental to its justification. The Government review also points out that impartiality is one area where the BBC is seen by surveys to be “less favourably compared” in the provision of news, and exhorts the BBC to improve that and to maintain the trust of the public and the audience.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I think the hon. Gentleman has somewhat lost the House. None of us understands what the connection is between expenditure by Parliament and expenditure by the national broadcaster. Can he further develop why that is relevant?
Sir William Cash
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not lost anything at all. It is very simple. The fact is that in Parliament, we have proper debates by elected people and decisions made on matters of public importance, whatever the outcome and whatever the views expressed. They are democratically decided. The decisions put across by the BBC quite often are the result of a kind of centrist viewpoint, which I will come on to later, which is inevitably not consistent with the views of the public who pay for the benefit, if that is what it is to be called, of watching and listening to the programmes in question.
The Government review recommends that the BBC publishes more information on how it carries out its work on impartiality and how it responds to Ofcom’s challenge to improve its performance. A new complaints system has been established under the principle of “BBC First”, but the question remains whether that has worked. The number of complaints made to Ofcom about the BBC’s impartiality has increased, and the evidence is that the BBC is not meeting this challenge.
It is understood that there has been substantial disagreement between the Government and the BBC during the creation of this new complaints system, but it is still found wanting and Ofcom needs to improve its own performance. It is also understood that many former BBC employees with BBC sympathies remain in Ofcom and are involved in this process. That also represents a problem, the ultimate result of which is unsatisfactory. Clearly, the Government are not sufficiently satisfied with the BBC at the moment, or with Ofcom’s performance on this vital question. That is bad news. As the Government point out, the BBC has failed to have a sufficiently robust internal system for identifying the statistical data to determine its analysis of complaints. The Government state that the independence of complaints handling indicates that the BBC can do more to ensure that audiences feel that their complaints will be fairly considered.
A number of points need to be made. I know something of this, because the European Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, took evidence from the BBC nine years ago on the issue of bias. We criticised the BBC on the question of the European issue before the referendum took place. The distinguished Lord Wilson of Dinton made same kind of criticism of bias in his own report. All these years later, the Government remain concerned even now that the manner in which complaints are dealt with, and the data involved, continue to be profoundly unsatisfactory.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am afraid that I am one of those who has been distracted, and I will not be able to remain to speak in the debate. I took a very great interest in the report by Lord Wilson of Dinton, not least because it did not denigrate the integrity of people in the BBC. It did uncover, however, an unconscious preconception about what certain views on the European community meant. The report was about the impartiality of the BBC when reporting matters concerning the European Union. It made a lot of people in the BBC extremely angry. People from the BBC told me that it should never have been commissioned, even though it was a totally objective report. When confronted with it, the BBC still gets very angry about it, which suggests that there is a different atmosphere in the BBC about certain issues. Nobody ever thinks that they themselves are biased, and the BBC does not think it is biased, but it can unconsciously produce a very one-sided approach to a particular issue such as the European Union—and, in that case, about the single currency.
Sir William Cash
Indeed. The proof was in the pudding and was demonstrated by the outcome of the referendum on 23 June 2016. My hon. Friend is right. Actually, this is about unconscious bias in some cases and very positive groupthink in others. That is where the problem lies—somewhere in between.
On a limited budget, the voluntary organisation News-Watch does the job extremely well. It states: “The BBC's continued stonewalling of complaints, inadequacies of Ofcom in its watchdog role and the lack of effective reforms proposed by the mid-term review to ensure impartiality remains a fundamental problem.” Thus, the national interest is undermined, and the right of the licence-fee payer to have a proper system in place is denied him. News-watch is calling—rightly, in my opinion—for much more radical reforms to ensure impartiality, with a fully independent complaints system, more transparency and accountability, and efforts to improve diversity of opinion among BBC staff through new staff-training initiatives to ensure impartial research and analysis. All those are urgent.
The mid-term review does not, in my opinion, provide a proper system for determining breaches of impartiality, and allows the BBC and Ofcom undue latitude in interpreting what the words “due impartiality” mean, leaving the BBC as its own judge and jury. Indeed, in the past year, the new BBC editorial complaints unit—otherwise known as the ECU—has upheld only one impartiality complaint. People simply will not believe that, but it is a fact. Neither the BBC nor Ofcom routinely publish detailed data on the vast majority of the nearly 2 million complaints received since Ofcom became the regulator in April 2017. The system is, therefore, not fit for purpose.
Ofcom’s own figures indicate that complaints relating to bias make up as much as 39% of the complaints, and complaints about misleading and dishonest content make up a further 26%, amounting to approximately 800,000 complaints about bias since Ofcom took over. Of the 155 complaints upheld or partly upheld by the new ECU system, only 33 were accepted as relating to bias, which is an absurd and minuscule proportion. We do not yet have the latest figures, those relating to 2023-24, but the provisional information indicates that the ECU considered 374 complaints, of which only 2.7% were fully or partially upheld and 89% were not upheld. The situation is shocking and demonstrates an intrinsic failure of the system. It must be made fully independent, and must not be judge and jury.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about the mid-term review’s own conclusion that
“there is clear evidence that adherence to impartiality and editorial standards is now at the heart of the BBC’s priorities”.
Sir William Cash
It is at the heart of the BBC’s priorities in theory, but not in practice. Ofcom is insufficiently independent, and it is understood that there are deep concerns about the entrenched ties between its content board and the BBC—which still persist—and, therefore, a lack of accountability. A mere 56% of the public now believe that the corporation is impartial. The BBC refuses to engage with complaints that do not refer to single programme items, and there is a lack of comprehensive research into audience perceptions of bias.
I noticed an important letter in The Daily Telegraph on 23 January this year from Baroness Deech, a distinguished Cross-Bench peer and King’s counsel who was a governor of the BBC from 2002. Regarding the publication of the mid-term review in January, she wrote that
“Complaints are seen by the BBC as very sensitive matters, threatening the independence of the editors: witness the lengths to which it has gone to keep secret the Balen Report on its bias against Israel.”
She argues that
“The best way to handle complaints would be to appoint an independent ombudsman from outside the media industry, supported by experts on the topic at issue.”
I believe she is right. She confirms that
“Ofcom is heavily staffed by former BBC and media professionals who may be as touchy as their current counterparts at the notion of bias at the BBC.”
It is not just a notion: it is clearly apparent, and that is what the public think.
It is also interesting to note the views of distinguished BBC insiders, who know how the system works on a daily basis and have been openly critical of the BBC’s performance while they were employed as top-line and experienced presenters and commentators within the BBC for decades. I recommend that anyone who is interested in this subject reads Roger Mosey’s book “Getting Out Alive”, which gives a very good insight into issues of bias by the BBC on the question of Europe. He recalls a “Today” programme meeting when Rod Liddle was confronted by a producer who said disparagingly,
“‘The Eurosceptics believe Germany is going to dominate Europe!’ This generated laughter from bien pensant colleagues”
about the ridiculousness of that idea.
“‘But what if it’s true?’ was the response from the editor, and he set the team thinking about items that would examine whether Euroscepticism had some well-founded beliefs”
As Members will recall, at that time nobody thought for a minute about the simple question that those of us who were campaigning on the European issue—in my case, having come into the House in May 1984, I have campaigned continuously for 40 years—were trying to get across: “What does the European Union and its related matters mean for the British people?” That is an example of how the system can work—when reason prevails, as demonstrated by the editor of the “Today” programme.
Mosey also refers to the issue of asylum seekers in the summer of 2003, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
Mosey said that the people he describes as the “editorial policy people” asserted in this context that the issue was being led by an
“angry tabloid agenda and extreme Right-wing groups”.
Mosey replied strongly to the editorial policy team, saying among other things that the
“asylum debate is one in which we’ve done rather badly in reflecting the concerns of our audiences or the genuine crisis faced by the government in dealing with the issue”.
That was in Tony Blair’s time, let along now. Later, he mentions:
“Two years ago when it started being raised, we did not realise the level of unease about the issue”.
Now, two decades later, the position remains the same.
I also recommend John Humphrys’s book “A Day Like Today”, particularly, after 33 years of political interviewing, his conclusion:
“Today presenters and their stablemates do have questions to ask themselves. Does an interview always have to be so combative? Does there have to be a winner or loser”—[Interruption.]
John Humphrys, and he knows what he is talking about, unlike the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), says that
“if it does, the loser might very well be the public. If we interviewers succeed, albeit unintentionally, in convincing the listener that all politicians are liars, the real loser is our system of representative democracy that has served the nation so well for so long”,
to which I say, “Hear, hear.”
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. I would just draw the House’s attention to when I was new young Back Bencher in the early 1990s, and two or three of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), finally got a meeting with the “Today” programme’s editorial team, which I think included Rod Liddle. We started to explain to them why joining a single currency in the European Union might be a rather bad idea and they were very interested, but they were greeted with derision when they went back to the BBC and suggested that our arguments should be taken seriously.
Sir William Cash
The short answer is that we got the verdict on 23 June 2016, as we all know.
The problem is that the BBC is incapable of enforcing its own rules on impartiality, largely because the overwhelming majority of the corporation’s journalists as pivotal staff—as one hears, even from Members of this House who have worked for the BBC—are signed up to a left-liberal political worldview in which group-think and woke prevail, and any who diverge from the worldview they hold makes those who differ from them targets for criticism and worse, including ridicule.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
I neither deify nor damn the BBC, and like most of my constituents, my household’s interactions are with BBC Merseyside, CBBC, “Match of the Day”, the Proms and the latest new drama. However, I will say that I have never worked, engaged with or had dealings with any member of BBC staff—political staff, journalists—who has been anything other than professional. I have never assumed, and I have never asked about, what their political leanings are. Having listened to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I respect him very much, I do think that we have had a lot of subjective opinion and perhaps some score settling, but not a lot of objective evidence.
Sir William Cash
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will only say that, as he will have noticed, I have been quoting some highly experienced, knowledgeable and famous presenters and commentators, who have made their own remarks.
What the corporation desperately needs is more political diversity. One of the problems is the BBC’s hiring policy, which should be seeking out journalists, researchers and programme makers with divergent views if they are genuinely to present commentary on a fair and unbiased basis. Despite Director-General Tim Davie’s avowed intent to reform the BBC and maintain a proper reputation for impartiality, that has not happened. This can be seen, for example, by the total failure—I have myself mentioned it frequently in the press—to restrain the likes of Gary Lineker from making political statements on the issue of small boats, and getting away with it scot-free. The same applies to outrageous examples of aggressive interviewing, far beyond objective questioning, that have recently centred on the Hamas-Israel conflict. This was the subject of an important debate led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) in Westminster Hall only a few weeks ago.
The so-called thematic review published only this week is a good example of how things are still going wrong. The report claims to have considered more than 1,500 output items but deliberately opted not to undertake any statistical content analysis, as the BBC knows only too well, and, as before, ignoring the report on the BBC’s coverage led by Lord Wilson 20 years ago. The BBC knows that real statistical analysis is required and can do so but simply refuses to provide it.
The licence fee is inevitably under attack as a result of this failure and the loss of trust with taxpayers that goes with it. It is also embedded, I am afraid, in the failures I have identified in the well-intentioned BBC mid-term review itself. This raises the question of why those who pay the licence fee and who feel that the BBC disregards their views, and can demonstrate to have experienced that, should be forced to pay for the running of the BBC, a subject upon which the wise and reasonable Lord Charles Moore has frequently written in the past.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He made a wide-ranging speech more at times perhaps suited to the History channel than to BBC Parliament, but I am sure the viewing public will have listened to what he said with great interest. He made some important points, and the attendance at this debate does not reflect the high regard in which people hold the BBC and its importance for our nation, which is why this review is of importance.
I was not familiar with the term “BBC sympathiser,” but I suspect that many members of the public would recognise themselves as BBC sympathisers because it does hold a special place in many people’s hearts and is respected around the world. That should not make the BBC immune to criticism, however, and because of the unique way it is funded it is often held to a higher standard than many of its competitors.
It is right that the BBC should respond to public concerns and reflect the way society is changing, otherwise it will find itself consigned to the history books alongside silent movies and video cassettes. The sad reality is that the BBC’s traditional rivals on free-to-air terrestrial TV are already on life support because they cannot compete with online subscription services in terms of quality and they cannot match the ways online services can target adverts and reach people, which were inconceivable not long ago. So the BBC could become the last man standing in terms of wholly British broadcasters.
But the warning signs are there for the BBC too. A recent survey found that 43% of people did not know what the TV licence was for and 66% agreed that the TV licence should be scrapped in 2027. I do not agree with that, but that survey should be ringing alarm bells. It may only be one survey, and I do not know the age breakdown, but I suspect we would find from it that younger people are less likely to see the value of the licence fee. After all, they will have grown up in a world where on-demand subscription services are the norm, so paying for something regardless of whether they watch it may well seem outdated and probably unfair.
But when we look at the hard facts, not just at surveys, that also paints a worrying picture. The number of people not paying the licence fee has doubled in 10 years, and that is despite the threat of large fines for non-payment. If that non-payment rate increases at the same rate over the next few decades, we can all see where that will take us. So we need to ask serious questions about why non-payment rates are growing. Clearly that is in part because people are voting with their feet and their wallets, and that is a challenge for the BBC in its overriding mission, which I will address shortly, but it is also a question of enforcement.
When I ask questions of Ministers about enforcement action, it is clear that none has been taken against anyone over 75 for non-payment. I certainly know of a constituent in that age bracket who has decided for their own reasons not to pay the licence fee and so far has received 23 letters with various degrees of threat within them, but no actual enforcement action has been taken. It seems to me that the BBC has taken the decision not to prosecute over-75s for non-payment. I certainly have no issue with that—we should not be criminalising pensioners—but that does jar with the other stories we hear about seriously ill and vulnerable people being prosecuted for non-payment. It seems that we are ducking the hard decisions that need to be made about how we deal with the licence fee.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Is there not another issue here, which is that the BBC is a successful programme maker and broadcaster, yet it is completely unable to compete with the likes of Amazon Prime and Netflix, because it is not allowed to run subscription services in the same way? Is there not a case for replacing a large proportion of the licence fee income with subscription income for those programmes, albeit that it would still be necessary for the BBC to have some public subvention for its public service broadcasting, which plays such a key role in our national life?
Justin Madders
That is where the debate takes us, and that is a debate we need to have. We need to decide as a House and a country whether we think that the current model is sustainable. There is evidence mounting that it is not. Equally, I want to protect the BBC, what is good about it and what I value about it. That means that we have to face these issues. Not many businesses that decide not to charge 10% of their customers will survive for long, and people in a free society should not be criminalised for refusing to pay for a service that they do not use, so something will have to change. Either the BBC will have to change tack, or the Government or this place will have to fill that gap. If a council saw such levels of non-payment for council tax, the Government would be sending inspectors in to ask the council to deal with it. We are in a strange situation where we are ignoring a serious issue.
I note with interest that the annual report on the licence fee produced by the BBC claims that it visited more than 72,000 premises without a licence, but the report mysteriously fails to say what action was taken as a result. While it is difficult to find out precisely how many homes should be paying the licence fee, we can state with confidence that 72,000 visits is in itself a small proportion of the properties not currently paying the licence fee. It is time for an honest debate about our expectations over people paying the licence fee.
The flipside of failures in licence fee collection is whether the BBC is run efficiently as an organisation. It is a cliché—I am sure we will hear plenty this afternoon—that it is a bureaucratic monster stuffed with BBC lifers, but we have to ask whether it is run effectively. I have been told that six different stakeholders from four separate BBC departments attend pitches for new TV series. When an organisation has so many internal stakeholders, we have to question who exactly they are serving. Those tasked with governing the BBC have to ask serious questions of it and of themselves as to whether they are delivering true value for money in that respect.
I will reflect on the subject of governance for a moment. I take the point that the hon. Member for Stone made earlier, but I come to a different conclusion. The debate today will clearly have a large element about the BBC’s impartiality, and I do not think it is constructive for us to trade off instances where the BBC has failed in recent times to get that right. We can all say that it can and must do better. I agree that how internal complaints are resolved needs to be looked at with some independent oversight. However, I will focus on how the BBC reflects the diversity of viewpoints in its broadcasting and decision making.
Broadcast is not just about which political party has its voice heard, but who from those political parties speaks. It seems to me and my constituents that political coverage is massively dominated by voices from London. That same London-centric view is presented through all politics coverage, and frankly it plays into the impression of large swathes of the country that politicians are out of touch and obsessed with the comings and goings in Westminster, far removed from the realities of people’s lives. Fair play to the BBC, it does deign to visit the regions with “Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, although I recall a recent occasion when “Any Questions?” came to Cheshire, but the BBC still had to bus in the Labour spokesperson from London. It proves that you can take the BBC out of London, but you cannot take London out of the BBC. The same applies to programmes broadcast out of Salford, when everyone jumps on the first train back to London after the show finishes.
This is not a BBC for the whole country; it is a BBC that is still shaped by the same privately educated Oxbridge, London and home counties viewpoint that has dominated it since its inception. Every member of the board that I have been able to find schooling details for was privately educated. That means there is a real lack of diversity of thought, and that is reflected in the make-up of the senior echelons of management and editorial staff, raising serious questions about the BBC’s commitment to social mobility. It is no wonder that sometimes my constituents look at the BBC and ask, “Who are they speaking to?”
That does matter, because as figures on non-payment of the licence fee continue to rise, the more that people feel the BBC is talking down to them and does not have a voice in their community, the more likely they are to join the millions who have decided not to pay. If we are not careful, we will soon reach a tipping point where the licence fee model becomes unsustainable. As someone who actually wants the BBC to survive—maybe that makes me a BBC sympathiser—I want this place to look seriously at how we square that circle.
I declare an interest as a licence fee payer, not once but twice—I am sure that many other hon. Members who split their time between here and their constituencies are as well. Even if I were only paying it once, I am sure that I would think it represents far worse value for money than any other TV service that I pay for in terms of pounds per hour watched. On one level, that should not come as a surprise—I pay for the subscription services I do because they have things that I want to watch—but could I honestly say that, were I given a free choice, I would pay the licence fee? I probably would, but more and more constituents are asking that question, and will continue to ask it. It needs a serious, sustainable answer.
I do not think that the BBC can compete with on-demand subscription services in terms of quality or frequency of output. It does some great TV, but it cannot compete with the investment that some of the on-demand services provide.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s indulgence. He is talking about the BBC’s TV services, but the BBC provides far more than just TV. He has not mentioned radio. I think that the BBC provides some of the best radio in the world, and that simply could not be provided by commercial operators. Does he agree that our nation is better served by having a diversity of voices from commercial providers and the BBC on the radio scene?
Justin Madders
I agree that BBC radio is absolutely fantastic. If I choose to listen to radio, I usually end up listening to the BBC, and not just for the sports coverage but for all other coverage. The BBC’s radio offering is probably the one part that it has got right in getting a good spread of voices and opinions from across the country.
BBC local radio is really important. Radio Merseyside is important to a great many of my constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) will attest. Some of the cuts to BBC local radio have been extremely regrettable, because it is a strength that we should be building on.
More generally, it is the BBC’s news element—be it on radio, online or on TV—that is critical to the BBC’s future. While some clearly think it has a bit of work to do to have everyone’s confidence that it is impartial, it is really important to our democracy in this era of disinformation and division to have a new source that is still trusted by the majority of people.
Sir William Cash
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the extraordinary examples of the Bashir interview, the Jimmy Savile scandal and the Cliff Richard scandal—those things that seem to envelop the BBC periodically in a way that completely destroys its credibility. Alistair McAlpine is another example. Does he agree that it is astonishing that an organisation that has such a reputation in certain quarters can fall down so badly in others?
Justin Madders
Those are some interesting historical references. Any organisation that has been around as long as the BBC, and with that amount of output, will fall down at times. However, it is clear from surveys about what people think about the BBC’s impartiality and their trust in what it broadcasts that it is well ahead of anyone else. That is something we need to preserve and treasure. I commend the work of Marianna Spring on the online disinformation being pushed by states and people who are hostile to this country and who want to sow distrust and undermine our democracy. Her work to expose that is vital.
If the BBC were to have no other role—though I think it should—it should be a trusted source of truth and transparency for everyone in this country and around the world. It will have a challenge persuading people that it is relevant in other areas. In the next few decades, the majority of the population will have grown up in a world where the idea of paying for a service on a TV set that they do not own for a bunch of channels they hardly ever watch feels anachronistic at best and indefensible at worst. The sooner we recognise that to keep the BBC at all we need to address that challenge, the sooner we can decide as a Parliament and a country that it is worth saving. I believe that it is, but we need to address the challenges before it is too late.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Here is a funny thing: while I have been sitting here, I have received a text message from the BBC asking me to do “Any Questions?” tomorrow evening in Sedbergh. I have had to break the news that, as Deputy Speaker, I am unable to do so. How peculiar.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
That is terrible news, Mr Deputy Speaker. The nation has been deprived of your views for too long, and we should hear more of them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this debate and on a fascinating speech in which he adduced some interesting evidence, particularly from books written by former senior BBC people. He may not be shocked to discover that I would deduce different conclusions from much of that evidence. I may have misunderstood what he said about the Roger Mosey story of Rod Liddle at the “Today” programme editorial meeting, where most people around the table laughed at the idea that Eurosceptics might have a point, but Rod Liddle ordered them to do some stories about it to investigate whether it was true. That seems exactly what I would want the editor of the “Today” programme to do—question his own staff and perhaps his own prejudices, and say, “Okay, let’s report a wide range of views.” If that is what is happening, that is a good thing.
I also slightly take issue with my hon. Friend’s praying in aid the thematic review of immigration that the BBC produced this week, which was very self-critical of some of its immigration coverage. That report was commissioned by the BBC so that it could flagellate itself if necessary and, hopefully, improve its coverage. That seems to be the sort of thing that I would want an organisation as powerful and important as the BBC to do—to retain the capacity to criticise itself. I suspect that he and I would share the view that, at times, the BBC can be exasperating, arrogant and wrong. Nevertheless, as chair of the BBC all-party parliamentary group, I believe it is one of our great national institutions. We should wish it success. We should constantly prod it and try to improve it but, in the end, we should take a positive view.
Sir William Cash
I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that my intention is to point to how statistical data is analysed, which may sound extremely boring but lies at the heart of whether we can properly evaluate the analysis in the public domain. I agree that there are moments when the BBC does very good things, but on some occasions it does very bad things, and there are reasons for that which need proper investigation.
Damian Green
I do not disagree at all. There is an interesting point about statistical analysis as opposed to other qualitative, perhaps more fuzzy analysis of the BBC’s output and performance. There is clearly a case for both.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the timeliness of the debate, because although our Benches are slightly denuded today, the country’s attention will be on the BBC over the next few days, particularly on Saturday night when there are two new episodes of “Doctor Who” followed by Eurovision on BBC1. I can tell hon. Members where the nation will be on Saturday night: watching the BBC. It is the only institution that can do that. Even in the completely different media world in which we now operate and that we all enjoy, there are times when the nation comes together, and that will be one of them. This is the second debate in a row where I quote a former tourism Minister who said that his experience of what attracted people around the world to this country were three institutions that they held in the highest regard: the royal family, the premier league and the BBC. We put them in peril at our own peril.
As Members, we all inevitably have a skewed perspective, because we concentrate on news and current affairs. Like everyone else here, I share many of the irritations and frustrations. I sometimes shout at the TV and the radio when I am at home, and I sometimes want to shout at the interviewer when I am on TV or radio. The BBC must get its news coverage right as part of its core mission. On that, the mid-term charter review is clear: it finds that there is clear evidence that adherence to impartiality and editorial standards is now at the heart of the BBC’s priorities, and so it should be.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) gave the impression that the BBC was a dying institution, with fewer and fewer people watching it or listening to it. However, eight out of 10 adults in this country on average consume BBC news every week. That is double the figure for the next nearest provider. At the same time—this is directly relevant to the mid-term charter review—the BBC is overwhelmingly the UK’s most trusted source of news. Some 45% of UK adults say they would turn first to the BBC. In second place, on 6%, are ITV or Sky. Regardless of the political views of the individual, BBC news is more trusted by people in the UK than any other institution. Interestingly, it is also the most trusted news brand in the US. At a time when the challenge to democracy and the capacity to have balanced debate is under threat as never before, that is really important. This House should acknowledge, for all our frustrations and irritations, that we are lucky in this country to have an institution that has that reach and that level of trust, and that we should therefore seek to preserve and enhance it.
I contrast the situation with news and debate here with that in the United States, where people increasingly get their news from a channel that reflects the views they already have. There are right-wing news channels and left-wing news channels in the United States. Therefore, its political debate is polarised and increasingly toxic. Anything we can do in this country to avoid going down that track seems to me to be very worth while. It is an essential part of public service broadcasting, and public service broadcasting by and large works.
We have talked about the changing landscape and the arrival of the streamers. The question is often asked: who needs the BBC when we have Netflix, Prime, Disney, Apple and Paramount? It is a good question, and the answer is: anyone who cares about having a distinctive British voice in media, drama, comedy and all the things that people want to watch. The thing that unites all the streaming services I mention is that they come from the United States. Sometimes they make programmes in Britain—we welcome them here to keep our media industry thriving—but nevertheless, in the end, they are not going to reflect the voice of people in this country, and in particular people in the parts of this country that are furthest away from London. Therefore, having a broadcaster whose basic role is to do that seems to me to be very important.
The BBC contributes £4.9 billion to the UK economy each year, with 50% of the gross value added generated outside London, and supports about 50,000 jobs around the country, again operating largely outside London. We know that the creative economy is one of our strongest economic sectors, and we know that the BBC is the largest single investor in original UK content. Knowing those facts seems to me, again, to reinforce the argument that, for all of the reviews and investigations that need to be conducted, on the whole the BBC is a force for good.
Another criticism, which must be taken head-on, concerns over-expansion. Has the BBC tried to provide services that could be provided by private operators or by the market, and in doing so has it tried to make itself too all-embracing in the British media landscape? I think that is a permanent discussion that is well worth having. It is important to ensure that the BBC is only doing things that would not be done otherwise, or doing things better and in a way that others would not do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone was very critical of Ofcom. I am sometimes critical of it myself, although less so than he is. Nevertheless, it is absolutely right to identify Ofcom, in the era of regulation that we have entered, as a crucial element of ensuring that the BBC sticks to doing what it needs to be doing. If there are signs that Ofcom is not doing that job effectively, this House—perhaps through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—will play an important role in ensuring that the BBC stays on the right track.
The overall context of this is, of course, the funding settlement for the licence fee, which has lasted for more than a century now and is increasingly under threat. We know about the short-term pressures; for reasons good or bad, the Government have not kept the licence fee in line with inflation levels over the past few years, and the BBC has therefore suffered painful rounds of cuts that have affected services that many of us value hugely, such as local radio. That is an important enough debate, which we have had in the Chamber previously, but an even more important debate is this: how long can a licence fee settlement continue?
I can reveal that the licence fee has survived for at least 30 years longer than some expected. I did some work on the 1990s licence fee and charter review, and in those days the much maligned—and unfairly so—John Birt was saying that he thought that it might be the last licence fee settlement, because he could see what was going to happen with the internet and new modes of delivery such as video and, at that time, just text. He thought that those would ultimately render the licence fee untenable.
Having sat through those debates in the 1990s, I find it fascinating that we are sitting here, 30 years later, still debating the same issues, and that by and large the people of this country are happy to pay the licence fee, although I agree that an increasing number are not doing so. Given what we get for it, it is still relatively cheap in comparison with the amount that many of us will spend on streaming services. It has survived longer than we expected, but in an age of declining linear viewing, whether it can continue is genuinely a key question. To those who wish to trot through the options, I can only commend the report that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a few years ago.
Damian Green
I am grateful for that vocal support from the Opposition Benches.
Having run through the options, the Committee concluded that, as things stand, technically it would be quite difficult to find a better way of doing this. We all know what the imperfections are, but there may not be anything better at the moment. The key principle, it seems to me, is that because everyone in the country has some stake in this, perhaps a financial stake—everyone is, in some way, buying BBC services—everyone is entitled to some education, information or entertainment in return. It is that striving to provide a universal service that keeps the BBC honest, and keeps it doing the things that only it does. If we take away that obligation, we may have a successful programme maker, but we would not keep the BBC doing the things it has done successfully for more than a century.
I often feel that the licence fee settlement works in practice but does not work at all in theory. Nevertheless, anything that might be theoretically better might actually be worse in practice, so I do not envy the Ministers who have to grapple with this matter. It is a genuinely difficult and hugely important issue to which there is no obvious answer.
I hope that the House agrees that the UK has a hugely valuable asset in the BBC and that, regardless of whatever changes need to happen, we need to preserve and enhance its ability to make a significant and positive contribution to our national life. That should be the test that Parliament sets itself when it considers the future of the BBC.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I served on the former Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee during the last charter negotiations in 2015-16, and I thought then that the charter period of 11 years was very long—it is a substantial extension. Although that allows the BBC to make longer-term decisions, a lot changes in the media landscape in that period of time. When the last charter was negotiated 11 years ago, the social media companies that dominate our media landscape today barely existed. They arrived on the scene in 2015-16 as major market players but were not yet what they are now: the principal way in which many people access their entertainment and news.
Looking at Ofcom’s “Media Nations” study, it is clear that younger viewers—people under the age of 40 —increasingly look first to social media or subscriber platforms for their content, rather than doing what people would have done in the past, which was to turn on the television and see what was on. That is a dramatic change in the way people consume news and information, and it is not just about a change in the type of content that they can access; it is also about broadcasting moving away from a true broadcast service, whereby a very large number of people choose to see the same things, and towards a personalised service, whereby the content that people consume is designed around them and their viewing habits. That applies to news just as much as it does to any other form of content.
That is the very big change that we have seen, and the prospect of artificial intelligence reducing the cost of production, particularly for news content, will only accelerate the process. The shift in people’s habits towards consuming media through online platforms and social media apps will accelerate the personalisation of the content they see. In fact, such tools have been designed precisely to achieve that end.
Sir William Cash
As ever, my hon. Friend, who has enormous experience of all this, will add a lot to this debate. He mentioned what was done some years ago compared with now. Has he been watching BBC Four’s repeat of the entire “Civilisation” series by Kenneth Clark? Does he not think that it is one of the most remarkable examples of what the BBC can do fantastically well, and that people should be watching it now? That is not a bad plug for the series.
Damian Collins
I agree with my hon. Friend. If I may briefly digress on his theme, I once hosted an event in Parliament for the Royal Television Society at which that programme was discussed. It was said that commissioning budgets and commissioning editors behaved very differently in the past, and that David Attenborough commissioned the entire series without having to ask for the director-general’s opinion; he just did a 14-part epic of factual content. Alan Clark’s father, Kenneth Clark, opens the “Civilisation” series by asking, “What is civilisation?” He says, “I don’t think I can define it, but I think I recognise it when I see it.” I sometimes think that the debate about whether the BBC is distinctive enough and what distinctiveness looks like at the BBC is rather the same: it is hard to define, but we think we recognise it when we see it.
The reason I wanted to open my remarks by talking about the changing nature of viewing habits and of the media, and the fact that it would have seemed impossible 10 years ago that the centrality of a broadcaster such as the BBC could be challenged by a service such as YouTube, is that it is changing viewing habits too. The one big difference between the charter negotiation in 2015-16 and the build-up to the new charter, which will come into effect in 2028, is that those changing habits are leading licence fee payers to make different choices. Increasingly, they are choosing not to pay. This is the great challenge we now face.
In the past, the BBC had to ward off Governments that sought to load substantial extra costs on to it without compensating with a large increase in the licence fee. We previously saw that with the cost of the World Service and then free licences for the over-75s. This time around, the BBC faces the challenge of potentially declining licence fee revenues, alongside the reluctance of consumers to pay much more than they are being asked to pay now. It is doubtful that licence fee payers would support a substantial increase to the licence fee, and I do not think either the Government or the Opposition would be inclined to do it.
The BBC will therefore have to continue challenging itself to consider how it can prioritise resources while maintaining its core principles, which I believe are fundamental to the BBC: that it is a publicly funded and universal service, in which there is something for everyone who pays into it. The challenge of how to deliver that in the modern era requires the BBC to look for alternative forms of revenue.
In many ways, the big change in the last charter renewal empowered the BBC to develop the commercial potential of BBC Studios. In the director-general’s recent speech, I was pleased to hear that he has set a target to increase those revenues to over £3 billion within the charter period. BBC Studios would then bring in a very substantial part of the BBC’s revenue.
Making more programmes for more people and selling them around the world is an excellent way for the BBC to make money, but we also have to consider how it can monetise its current programmes. In the pre-internet world, people would watch a programme they liked, and they could watch it again when it was repeated—some say that it would be repeated too often, but it would be repeated. If they wished to own it, so that they could watch it on demand, as we now say, they could buy a cassette or a DVD in a shop.
I think programmes should be free to air on services such as iPlayer for a period of time, but do they really need to be free for a year? Should there not be a point at which the BBC starts to charge people to watch on demand, just as any other subscription platform would?
The same goes for audio content. The BBC has tried to take a big position in the podcast market, although it has been very effectively challenged by new entrants that are producing programmes of the same quality as Radio 4, on a wider range of topics, and attracting very big audiences. Again, I think those programmes should be free to air and available to all, but should access to the full archive remain free forever, or should there be a charge? It is perfectly legitimate for the BBC to consider such commercial revenues in the same way as it sold books, DVDs and CDs in the past. These are ways in which the BBC can seek to bring in more revenue to reinvest in the programming that it needs to make.
The BBC also needs to consider the distinctiveness of its local newsgathering. This is a very important part of the BBC service. I think most Members are concerned about the apparent dilution of investment in local radio, which is an area where the BBC can deliver something in a way that no one else is delivering it. I think there should be increased investment. These are often among the BBC services that local audiences value most, and I am not sure those local audiences would have made some of the investment decisions that the BBC has made.
The breadth of services that the BBC offers has changed dramatically throughout its history. It may well be that the BBC needs to consider whether to prioritise certain services over others, while still remaining a universal broadcaster, because it may not be able to deliver the breadth that it delivers now while maintaining the quality standards it wishes to maintain. These are going to be very important considerations.
In terms of distinctiveness, I would like to see the BBC taking creative risks. It can afford to take creative risks because it is not reliant on advertising revenue to fund its programming. Holding an audience at a certain level throughout the day might be a demonstration of universal appeal, but it is not a commercial necessity for the BBC because it is not dependent on advertising revenue. It is a fair criticism to say, “Are the services on the BBC schedule, particularly the daytime one, distinct from what we would see on other channels?”. We largely see the same menu and diet of quiz, antique and property shows, which, although popular, are widely available. Could the BBC afford to take more risks and be more distinctive there?
The principle of the BBC being publicly funded is important. An aspect of this debate that is not mentioned enough is that under the alternative where we say to the BBC that we want it to be a voluntary subscription service, the volume of those subscriptions is almost certain to add up to less than we are talking about for the licence fee today. We would therefore have a much smaller BBC, largely making programmes for a smaller group of subscribers who wish to pay. That would be a gross act of vandalism against an important national institution.
If we have a fully commercial BBC, with full advertising, the biggest losers would be the other commercial broadcasters—ITV and Channel 4. They would discover that the revenue pot from advertisers for live TV audiences in the UK is not infinite and the BBC would simply be soaking it up. We would weaken our creative sector and our television market in the UK by doing that. We cannot disturb one part of the ecosystem of a great success, British television and film production, without disturbing the other component parts of it. That is why the BBC’s remaining publicly funded is important, although the mechanism has to be open to challenge.
As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, younger viewers, in particular, see the licence fee as a type of subscription, no matter how the BBC wants to see it. In effect, people see this as a monthly charge they pay, just as they might pay for Amazon Prime or for Netflix; they do not understand it as a device levy if they are watching TV through a computer or on their laptop. It might be that the BBC will have to be funded in a different way, be it a property-based tax, as has been discussed before by the Select Committee and is the case in Germany, or some other mechanism. If the BBC was funded publicly in that way, it is perfectly legitimate to say, “What amount, what proportion, of that funding should be contestable? To what extent should another free-to-air broadcaster, or even a subscriber broadcaster such as Sky, be able to come along and say, ‘We will make this instead, we will make it better and we will make it free to air.’”? What proportion of that revenue should be contestable in that way? There will be a legitimate debate on that, but opening this up too widely would make the BBC’s sustainability difficult to protect.
As we look forward to the end of this charter and the start of the new one, we face a lot of challenges on getting this funding mechanism right. It needs to give the BBC the revenue and flexibility it needs to do what we want it to do. It needs to be funded through a charging mechanism that makes sense to the public. We also have to consider the viability of other services such as the BBC World Service, which is of huge strategic value to the UK but is largely funded by licence fee payers now. We must consider the extent to which there should be government support for that, particularly in respect of services that are further afield.
In closing, I just wish to say that I regard the BBC as a vital national institution. In a world that is becoming more fractured and where audiences are more scattered, the role of a trusted national broadcaster that can be impartial—although that will always be open to challenge from people who hold different views—that is resolutely focused on trying to get to the truth, and that can be a trusted source of news and information in a world riven by disinformation, conspiracy theories and lies, is of the utmost importance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, a national broadcaster can put on those moments that bring the nation together, be it a royal wedding, royal funeral or the coronation, Eurovision or major sporting events. At such times, the nation can come together and the BBC becomes the national town square. That is a fundamental part of its role in our public life.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this important debate. I class myself as a critical friend of the BBC—I am not sure whether that makes me a sympathiser or not. I want to see the BBC prosper in the new media age, but that inevitably means we will see change at the BBC, in response to the global creative boom we are witnessing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, we should not underestimate the soft power involved here: the selling of UK plc around the world by the BBC and its work. However, we simply cannot expect the British public to accept an ever-increasing licence fee if they perceive the values and approach of the BBC to be out of kilter with their world.
My constituents tell me that they value the BBC. They value a British public service broadcaster, particularly for news and current affairs, but it seems that the BBC does not value the type of news and current affairs that my constituents want, particularly around local news. It is disappointing that the one area where the BBC can genuinely make a difference—local provision—has been the area that has been cut and withdrawn in recent months. My constituents are concerned about opinions that are presented as facts. They want creativity and innovation, but they want to see the world through eyes that are from their local area. They want to see their town or their street reflected on the screens or heard through the speakers of their BBC radio station.
Its best and most distinctive content is unrivalled in range and quality, while being highly valued by listeners and viewers. Some of its services and programmes would simply not be possible to provide on a commercial basis. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), services like Radio 4 simply would not exist in the commercial marketplace.
The majority of my remarks will pick up on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford about what the BBC should be doing as we move forward post the mid-term review, and thinking about the next licence fee settlement. The mid-term review provided a valuable insight into the BBC’s governance and regulation arrangements, and whether they have successfully enabled and effectively delivered the BBC’s mission and public purpose. I particularly welcome the mid-term review agreement with Ofcom and the recommendations to change the framework agreement, so that new BBC services are not automatically considered material changes.
There is lots of value in Ofcom publicising an annual view on the BBC’s position in the local news sector, and setting out its approach to considering the competition impacts of changes to BBC local news services, particularly in relation to the local press, which is struggling significantly. The BBC’s decision to move more of its resource online has a consequence and impacts local journalism that is supported by advertising. For me, Ofcom should take serious interest in that. Ofcom has said it will set out a view for the first time in November 2024, and subsequently use its annual report on the BBC to update its view. I particularly welcome that.
I will take a few moments to specifically look at the competition and market impact in relation to the audio and radio sectors. For context, let us start by looking at the audience of BBC Radio. The combined weekly audience for all BBC and commercial radio in the UK remains extremely healthy. Some 49.5 million people, representing 88% of the population, put their radio on every week to listen to a linear service. In the last quarter of 2023, the most recent figures published by Radio Joint Audience Research, BBC Radio’s share of total listening is 43.2%. One operator has 43% of the radio-listening market; that remains a significant, dominant position. The remaining 56% is split between myriad much smaller commercial operators. The BBC holds an extremely privileged position because of the scale of funding it receives, its unrivalled broadcast network and its ability to cross-promote its services, the like of which is not available to any rival operator, be that in television, radio or online.
I advocated changes to the BBC Trust back in the early 2000s, but it is fair to say that there has been a relatively light-touch approach to defining and policing the activities of the BBC that most closely resemble the commercial sector in the radio and audio world. Traditionally, this has included the main pop music services—Radio 1 and Radio 2—but the BBC is also increasingly leveraging its position in radio and audio into its online activities provided on the BBC Sounds platform.
This debate provides me with an opportunity to highlight the current process of consultation over the launch of new services on all platforms, including BBC Sounds, as well as the effectiveness of regulation and governance from Ofcom in ensuring its distinctiveness. Specifically, the review looked at how the BBC and Ofcom assess the market impact and public value of the BBC in an evolving marketplace and how this relates to the wider UK media ecology, including with regard to commercial radio and local news sectors, and other content makers and distributors. It is important that regulatory conditions for BBC radio services are not diluted and that the drive for the BBC to deliver distinctive output remains.
The BBC has been repeatedly and rightly criticised by Ofcom for not meeting the required standards of openness with stakeholders, especially when new services are being developed. Earlier, I detailed that a more structured consultation is required, which is what Ofcom is urging the BBC to do. The current framework places too much emphasis on the BBC’s own judgment and assessments of impacts, especially when considering the significance of change to its own services. This undermines the credibility and independence of the process. Ofcom can and should do more to make sufficiently robust assessments of competitive impacts, and needs to set out a clearer and more consistent requirement for the BBC.
The extent of the BBC’s significant dominance in sectors such as radio and the implications of this for both distinctiveness and market impact must be reflected more clearly. BBC services must be measured and held to account to the highest possible standards of distinctiveness. Just last week, when I met people from the BBC, I asked for some data relating to digital audiences. The reply I received is that they would be publishing them annually. That is simply not good enough.
In February, the BBC announced plans to launch new spin-off radio stations on DAB and BBC Sounds, which would directly imitate radio services provided currently by the independent radio sector. My view is that these new services are duplicates and they fail to deliver distinctive output to listeners already concerned about changes to their beloved BBC local radio services. The changes require regulatory approval from Ofcom, and I have raised my concerns directly with the Minister and the regulator. I am concerned that the BBC is attempting to fast-track proposals on BBC Sounds, which is subject to less regulatory oversight than the DAB services.
As listening habits continue to shift online, there is a real risk of harm to popular and innovative commercial stations developing across the UK. Stations such as Boom Radio have moved in to deliver popular services for the over-50s when Radio 2 moved its services to a younger age group. If this service is launched exclusively on BBC Sounds, and it inevitably receives significant cross promotion on BBC 1 and on Radio 2, it will drive audiences and can impact commercial operators significantly.
In March, the BBC confirmed new plans, for the first time in the UK, to run advertising around its podcasts and on-demand content on third party platforms, such as the Apple podcast app. If these proposals are introduced, listeners who do not use BBC Sounds would, in effect, be paying twice for BBC content. They have already paid their licence fee, which has contributed to making the content, but then they will be paying again through advertising revenues. The BBC is unfairly forcing licence fee payers to pick between ad-free listening on BBC Sounds or their preferred podcast platform. Listeners should be entitled to access BBC audio content, such as “Desert Island Discs”, via whatever means they choose. Although the podcasting advertising market is in its relative infancy, the BBC is dominant in UK audio, which is different from the TV market and, as a result, its impact could and probably will be significant. There is only a limited pool of audio advertising revenue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) referenced, with commercial audio broadcasters relying solely on that revenue to fund their services and invest in professional content.
Ironically, there is a risk that the new proposals will have an unintended consequence for the BBC. As we look at the future of the licence fee, observers may reasonably question, if some BBC audio services could be funded by advertising, why not do that to all their radio provision, or to the BBC as a whole? Analysis conducted by an audio think-tank has already identified that, were that to be the case, probably only Radio 1 and Radio 2 would continue to be funded, because they are the only services that would be commercially viable. I am very supportive of public funding for the BBC under the current licence fee model, simply because I do not think that a suitable alternative could be proposed at this stage. Given what I believe to be the unworkable nature of alternatives such as a subscription model for DAB or FM audio, we simply cannot allow anybody to railroad us into scrapping the licence fee at this stage.
I support the Government’s aim of ensuring that a strong, distinctive, independent BBC can continue to thrive for years to come. I also want us to take opportunities to improve the BBC where we can. My hope is that the mid-term review is a staging post in the charter that will help the BBC to live up to that ambition, support the corporation to fly the flag for Britain in all corners of the world, and address the risk that the BBC, which is not regulated and focused on distinctive content, risks the very future of public service broadcasting and innovation within the independent creative sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. The last two minutes will be for Sir Bill to wind up.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
When the mid-term review of the BBC was published, one commentator described it publicly as a
“great big hard hammer, badly disguised inside a not very velvet glove”
used to batter this key public institution. There was much criticism of the report over the BBC’s perceived failure to achieve balanced coverage. The sight of some right-wing Conservatives attacking the BBC over its record on impartiality was something to behold. Many hound BBC journalists over objectivity, yet the Conservatives are happy for their Benches to operate as a sort of green room for GB News, with half a dozen or so Tory Members popping up there regularly, masquerading as journalists. Ofcom, the regulator, has explicitly condemned GB News and its Tory MP presenters over their continuing breaking of our broadcasting rules. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) moonlights as a newsreader daily on GBeebies—a clear breach of Ofcom rules, which the regulator is sadly too weak to enforce.
I worked for the BBC for many years as a freelancer. Most BBC journalists, I sincerely believe, try to be fair and impartial. They sometimes fall short. I think they did so during the independence referendum—not individual journalists but the BBC as an institution, because the BBC is deeply establishment as an institution. I do not believe for one moment that journalists go to work daily with the objective of spreading disinformation. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) cites as an example of woke Europhile bias the views of Brexiter Rod Liddle. Who was this lowly figure when at the BBC? In fact, he held the powerful role of the “Today” programme editor. The hon. Member for Stone mentioned Roger Mosey. Another junior figure? No, he was also the “Today” programme editor, who became head of news.
Setting aside the surreal comparison that the hon. Member for Stone made between the cost of the BBC and Westminster—that is Westminster One, Two, Three and Four, Radio Westminster and Natural Westminster History, presumably—he moved on to some more BBC woke bashing, conveniently forgetting that the current BBC director general was a Conservative party candidate, the last BBC chair was a major Tory donor, and the last chair but two is now a Tory peer, like Lord Grade, Lord Patten, et cetera, et cetera.
In my position on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I regularly aim to hold BBC bosses to account over their party political loyalties, their judgment and their treatment of staff. That is all part of a healthy democratic critique. This Government, or any Government that hold office in this place, should back public broadcasting as a basic fundamental concept, and celebrate the BBC for its many present and past achievements, while of course remaining a critical friend. The constant baiting of the BBC during these last 14 years by so many senior Conservatives has given us, sadly, a weaker public broadcaster, on a shooglier financial footing, with a less positive impact on our democracy than when the Conservatives came to power.
Sir William Cash
I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly misinterpreted what I said, and is on the verge of being misleading. I happen to think Ron Liddle was an exceptionally good presenter, as was Roger Mosey and John Humphrys, but their experience demonstrated a degree of awareness that all was not necessarily well in the organisation or the manner in which their programmes were put together. That is all I am saying. I was not criticising them; I was commending them.
John Nicolson
Hold the front pages! The hon. Gentleman thinks that right-wing Brexiters are fundamentally good things when they appear on the BBC. That is a shock to us all, is it not?
I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who he said that the recitation by the hon. Member for Stone of the events of one particular editorial meeting showed a journalists’ office operating well: somebody says something controversial, other folk argue, and we all have—what was it Mrs Merton said?—a “right good debate”. I remember when I sat with the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and various others on “On The Record”; we were all reporters and we all held very different views, but we did our very best to make sure we were impartial when on air. That is just as it should be.
The Conservatives spent a good deal of time arguing that the licence fee should rise only with inflation. Then, when they trashed the economy and inflation rocketed, they demanded that the BBC not increase the licence fee with inflation, leading to further financial pressures. The Government also imposed a social responsibility, TV licences for the over-75s, on the BBC, leading to a widely predicted set of draconian cuts. Much faux surprise and outrage ensued from some on the Tory Benches. Those measures have had a huge negative impact on our public broadcaster, which we as a state have been building now for more than a century. An underfunded BBC suits none of us, because the BBC’s role in providing scrutiny for politicians, especially in an election year, is vital.
Reform of the BBC is certainly needed: pay equality for women; more black, Asian and minority ethnic staff in senior management posts; and more LGBT people in management and elsewhere. The BBC needs to end its fruitless battles with female staff, having lost or settled every single pay case it has fought against those women, at huge cost.
Having seen two Tory BBC chairs improperly appointed and forced to resign in the last decade, we surely need a new system for public service appointments. We will have a Labour Government soon. Will we see the same old British principle of Buggins’ turn, with Labour donors replacing Tory donors in senior posts? The Leader of the Opposition should rule out the appointment of any big-money donor as BBC chair. I notice he has conspicuously failed to do so. Now would be a good time to promise meaningful reform.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on giving us this opportunity to discuss the BBC. He brought up the concept of “BBC sympathies”. Virtually everybody in the Chamber—in fact, I think literally everybody, including him—has expressed at least some BBC sympathies in this debate. That is testimony to the fact that Members with all sorts of views on the BBC’s future, past and present have managed to find something they love about the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) recognised, for instance, the value of radio, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). My hon. Friend also rightly raised concerns about the BBC’s future and spoke about the possible implications of different funding options. He demonstrated that he values it as a trusted news source, and mentioned that that must continue, but without a proper funding arrangement, it could be weakened. I value his contribution.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) gave a thorough review of the importance of the BBC to our national life, our economy, our role in the world. He made powerful arguments about the ways in which funding options have hitherto affected the BBC’s output. He mentioned in particular the radio output, as have others. The concern has been raised by many Members, including some who are not here today, that the cuts and changes to local radio, for whatever reason, have had an effect. Future proposals may, as the hon. Member for Warrington South said, have an effect on competition. Concerns about that have been raised with him, as well as with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who has been taking radio stations’ views on the proposals. I think it right that we consider the effects on competition—the unintended consequences, as the hon. Member for Warrington South said.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) has been a distinguished member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee over the past 10 years. We have many former members of that Committee here, even in our low numbers, and they bring such expertise. He gave a detailed description of the implications of different forms of widening revenue. I urge all Members looking at the different funding options to read the Hansard report of this debate, because Members have made great contributions with thought and care. The hon. Member for Warrington South described himself as a critical friend of the BBC. I think that was an apt way to describe himself, because he raised concerns about competition and new proposals while also sharing what he believes to be unique and distinctive about the BBC.
It is worth spending a small amount of time on what is unique and distinctive about the BBC. Members have mentioned radio and podcasts. I would add BBC Bitesize, which so many young people relied on during the lockdown years. We have the BBC website. How many Members are getting BBC News alerts popping up on their screens right now? That is so often our method for learning about something that has just happened. We use it to check the weather in the morning, or to listen back to something that we have missed during the day but which we find really valuable. The content that the BBC is able to put out because of the role we entrust it with—a unique role in our public life—is what makes it such a great public service broadcaster.
As the Secretary of State wrote in her foreword to the BBC mid-term charter review, the BBC is an unmatched media institution that
“matters deeply to this country”
and to
“people right across the world.”
I agree. The Government have an important role in both scrutinising and championing the BBC, but the Secretary of State and some of her colleagues have had an odd way of showing it. I gently suggest to the Minister that the Government need to focus on supporting the BBC to fulfil its public service broadcasting mission, rather than using it as a punch-bag, as so many Conservative Members—many of whom are not here today—have done consistently in recent years.
I will underline the importance of the BBC to our national life before addressing the mid-term review itself. The BBC is one our greatest institutions. It brings wealth, jobs and joy, alongside other public service broadcasters. It brings people together for shared experiences, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said. From sporting occasions to royal occasions, we were all there. Most people turned to the BBC in the last few hours of the late Queen’s life, but we also turned to it for great moments of rejoicing when our new King was crowned so recently. The BBC brings together people from the world over in news output, which is particularly recognised and trusted, as the right hon. Member for Ashford said.
The BBC is an important part of our soft power, but it is also vital in the ecosystem of our creative industries. It contributes £4.9 billion to the UK economy every year, 50% of which is outside London. Many Members would argue that that percentage should be higher, and we will hold the BBC to its plans to take more investment outside London carefully. I have seen the benefit of that for myself in my constituency of Bristol West, which is home to the BBC’s world-renowned natural history unit. It is not just about the natural history unit itself, but the clustering of creative industries that has developed around it, with independent production companies flourishing. The BBC is the single largest investor in original UK content, creating jobs but also helping us to tell our national story in a distinctive British way. That is the first “B”—it is the British Broadcasting Corporation; it is not anything else but British—and it keeps British life front and centre.
I salute the BBC for its desire to improve and innovate, and to widen its range of content. The hon. Member for Stone talked about a diversity of views, and I believe that that is already with us. We have a diversity of output—of regional output, of regional voices and of stories told—but every Member should always challenge the BBC to go further on that, because championing a diversity of views is one of the things we are here to do in our role as MPs. However, the BBC is now competing for our attention with global media conglomerates that are motivated by profit, rather than by public service—those are different functions. Those include streaming services, but also content across social media, so it is important that we support and work with the BBC to change with the times, as well as challenging it to do so. We need to make sure it gets the support it needs.
Of course, the BBC needs a modern governance framework that is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The introduction of the unitary board to govern the BBC and the regulation of the BBC by Ofcom were both new elements in the 2015-16 charter review. That review included a focus on governance and regulatory issues, and therefore the BBC’s mission, public purpose and funding model were written out of the scope of this mid-term review. The Government chose to focus on six themes. The first was editorial standards and impartiality, which many Members have addressed today, and the second was the handling of complaints. I have to mention to the hon. Member for Stone that just because a complaint with which he sympathises is not upheld, it does not mean that the regulator was wrong. He poses an interesting argument: that a large volume of complaints not being upheld means that the complaints system is not good enough. The Minister may wish to address that point in her remarks.
The other themes were competition and market impact, commercial governance and regulation, diversity, and transparency. Overall, the findings of the review indicate that the BBC’s governance and regulation are working well. It says that that is particularly true of the BBC’s commercial activities—something that is worth noting. I welcome the review’s recommendations to push the BBC to continue making improvements in relation to diversity—diversity of view, of voice and of identity—and transparency. If I am the next Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I will continue to push the BBC to do so. The BBC has made clear commitments in both those areas and is making progress towards meeting those commitments, but there can never be room for complacency in any creative organisation. I will always hold the BBC to account: it takes public money to do the work that it does, and representing the widest diversity of voices is so important.
As other Members have said, it is right that Ofcom should assess the impact of the BBC’s decisions on the wider market, but it should also be noted that of all 35 materiality assessments reviewed by Ofcom since the start of this charter period, it has disputed only one. It is also right that the BBC has a clear, easy to understand and robust complaints process—that is why the principle of “BBC First” was introduced in 2017, so that licence fee payers can hold the BBC directly accountable. It is important to be guided by evidence. Of course, it is right that the BBC is impartial, and that there is a process for assessing that impartiality; that is the only way in which the BBC will remain the UK’s most trusted source of news and, some would claim, the world’s most trusted source. It should therefore be noted that Ofcom has upheld only one complaint against the BBC regarding impartiality in the eight years since the beginning of this charter.
It is important that Members of all views recognise the role of the mid-term charter review, but also the work that Governments of all colours will need to do. In a context of rising disinformation and misinformation spread by highly sophisticated state and non-state actors, and in a year in which the citizens of so many countries are taking to the polls, our public service broadcaster could not be more precious. Our democracy is the richer for it.
The information that the mid-term review gathered on the public perception of the BBC is also evidence—it is evidence of what the public think about the BBC. That is fundamentally important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised that in reflecting the views of his own constituents. The BBC spent 100 years building trust, and it cannot stop now and it cannot take its reputation for granted. I believe it is doing neither. I believe it is working hard to move forward, but it will always be held to account.
The next charter review will, I hope, take place under a Labour Government, and we will work constructively with the BBC to make sure it is fit for the 21st century. It will be informed by the BBC’s biggest ever public engagement exercise, which will begin next year. It will be informed by an understanding of the great contribution the BBC makes to storytelling—British storytelling—as well as to the growth of the creative industries in the UK, and its unique role in bringing communities together. Most importantly, it will be informed by a true appreciation of the value of a source of both entertainment and news that we can trust.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a genuinely interesting and rich discussion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this important debate on our mid-term review of the BBC. As I approach my—ahem—40th birthday in just under four weeks’ time, I would rather be celebrating his 40th anniversary as a parliamentarian, which passed only days ago. He will be retiring from this place when the general election comes calling, leaving behind four decades of service to our nation and a legacy of relentless campaigning, the crowning achievement of which will be his efforts to restore sovereignty to this place. He has been a parliamentarian of substance and impact, and a parliamentarian who has understood his fundamental role, which is first and foremost to serve the people and interests of this our great nation.
One of my hon. Friend’s techniques as a relentless campaigner—I hope he will not mind my saying this—is lying in wait for Ministers and pouncing on them, with surprising agility for an octogenarian, in darkened corridors or voting Lobbies to advance the causes closest to his heart. So it has been that on many occasions we have discussed BBC impartiality. Of course, his interest in this subject extends well beyond my three years as Media Minister—he referenced 1984, 1990 and 2003—because it is a cause he has championed for decades. Why? Because, as he implied, it goes to the heart of the special contract between the British people and the BBC: that the BBC will be funded in a unique way, via the licence fee, because it has unique duties in how it covers national events, produces content, reports on and shapes public debate, and imbues the British values of fairness, free speech and rigour into the BBC World Service as an international projection of our nation.
As my hon. Friend reflected in a debate last month, he played an important role in putting the issue of BBC impartiality at the centre of the current charter. I regret that he will not be here in the next Parliament with his institutional knowledge, when a new generation of MPs will need to make some very big decisions about the future of the BBC as its next royal charter is drawn up, the foundations for which we are laying now. The mid-term review has been one of the staging posts to that moment, and it will be a huge moment for UK broadcasters, audiences and creators because the world is changing around us, and changing very rapidly.
The question that has preoccupied public debate on the BBC’s future the most is the sustainability of the licence fee, which has been mentioned several times. Be in no doubt but that that will be a big part of the discussion on the charter renewal. The numbers paying the licence fee are falling whether or not people are advocates of it. The way audiences, particularly younger audiences, consume content is breaking their traditional relationship with the linear broadcasters, weakening the loyalty to and the love of the institution. Audiences feel that the BBC is not adequately reflecting them, as has also been touched on. As a consequence, they have lost trust in it and are starting to not want to pay the licence fee.
The fact that most television will be received over the internet will introduce new gatekeepers and promoters of content, and none of us quite knows how AI will shape the information industry. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke about these challenges with great clarity, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who brings his considerable expertise to this debate. Before I turn in more detail to the mid-term review, my ask of this House, if I may make one, as we debate the BBC in the coming months and years is that we do not lose focus on the very big picture as we fret over the urgent or everyday matters surrounding the BBC, its coverage and its presenters.
Since the second world war, we have understood our country and its values in part through the strength of its great institutions, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). The BBC is surely one of them, but it is not enough simply to will it to have a future and expect that to be the case. As the world changes around us, those institutions whose strength we have perhaps complacently relied upon must go through a process of renewal—a renewal that provides clarity of purpose and a sense of mission for the next decades of the 21st century—and, dare I say it, that includes the Conservative party and a renewal of centre-right thinking.
In the BBC’s case, that mission must surely include the vigorous pursuit of truth in a world in which information and facts are blurred with increasing sophistication and intent. It must not just provide audiences with a narrow diet of content that suits an individual’s taste or caters to their own worldview, but challenge, inform, educate and provoke curiosity in a way that pulls people out of their silos and in a way that serves all audiences, but especially our children, as a counter to malign elements of the online world and the pull of addictive entertainment over nourishing educational content that helps them navigate the real world around them. As this House has made patently clear, that includes local audiences, and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has campaigned particularly strongly on that.
One of the most interesting parts of the director-general’s recent speech about the future of the BBC was about algorithms, which are designed by many organisations to monetise controversy. He set out how the BBC in the 21st century is developing unique ethical algorithms that do not simply double down on an individual’s narrow preferences but guide them into a broader, richer catalogue and bring people together.
At charter renewal, there might also be interesting questions about how we can best create and deliver public service content if younger audiences are moving elsewhere, and about whether a wider range of outlets and creators are well placed to deliver that. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe touched on that.
We will need to look at the BBC World Service as a force for projecting our values globally as malign states seek rapidly to up the stakes in the battle for hearts and minds. Finally, there will be important questions about the BBC’s vital role in feeding the wider broadcasting and creative ecology in a way that will allow us in the UK to continue as a world leader in creativity and to retain our cultural voice. That is an aspect of the BBC debate that is often overlooked or misunderstood when we discuss its value. It has led the director-general to describe the BBC as
“a growth and innovation fund for the UK…to back British storytelling.”
The mid-term review touches on some of these issues, but it should be seen as the staging post that it is—a new innovation introduced at the last charter to understand whether the BBC is operating in the way envisaged at the last charter review, but also to signal where we think things may need to change by 2027. I understand that for some Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone included, the mid-term review did not go far enough on issues close to their hearts and I want gently to challenge that view. The mid-term review delivered a number of significant and necessary reforms, focusing on editorial standards and impartiality, whether the BBC has the right complaints model, and the distinctiveness of the BBC’s content in relation to competition and market impact.
I want to be clear that the discussions within the mid-term review with the BBC and Ofcom, led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, resulted in recommendations she got over the line, with the licence fee payer always at front of mind. Our review was unambiguous that there is scope for material improvement across a variety of areas and it made 39 recommendations for meaningful change.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has previously mentioned, impartiality was at the heart of the mid-term review and we concluded that it continues to be a major challenge for the BBC. Following direct and constructive dialogue with us in Government, the BBC is implementing major reforms building on the Serota review, and that includes thematic reviews of output—most recently, we saw one this week on migration coverage.
A key feature of the mid-term review is the recommendation for Ofcom’s regulatory responsibilities, including its oversight of due impartiality, to be extended to key areas of the BBC’s online public service material, which is where many now go for their content. The BBC also has an important tool at its disposal in its efforts to continue building trust in its relationships with its audiences and that is the complaints process. As Members will know, the BBC is unique among broadcasters in having the chance—indeed, the responsibility—to try and resolve audience complaints about its content first before they are considered by the independent regulator Ofcom. The ongoing feedback of licence fee payers to the BBC and how that feedback flows directly to staff and programme makers is invaluable in helping the BBC understand what its audiences care about and how to make its services better.
We have heard concerns through the MTR about complaints, and that is why they formed a key focus of our review, and it is the area where we made the most recommendations. I recognise the strength of feeling among some Members. For those colleagues, fundamental questions remain about the appropriateness of the “BBC First” principle, and that is why at charter review we have committed to examining whether “BBC First” remains the right complaints model to enable the BBC to deliver against its responsibilities to serve all audiences.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about the BBC’s role in the market and the impact on commercial competitors, and that was also raised in the mid-term review. The charter does not preclude the BBC having an adverse impact on the market, if the BBC and Ofcom believe that is necessary for the effective fulfilment of the BBC’s mission and public purposes. We talked extensively with industry during the review, and we found that a lack of effective engagement has the potential to risk the BBC’s and Ofcom’s decision-making process. We are clear that the BBC needs to drive higher standards for that stake- holder engagement and transparency so that businesses operating in the same markets can be supported. We have therefore made recommendations to ensure that the BBC strengthens that engagement with competitors in the media. In particular, that should include commercial radio stations and local newspapers, especially when it makes decisions that impact them.
While the mid-term review will deliver material improvements in the BBC’s governance and regulation, I reiterate that it is only one part of the Government’s ongoing programme of work to scrutinise the BBC, with more to come as we move towards charter review. This will be a significantly broader process than the mid-term review, considering what the BBC is for and how it is funded. That is why, before charter review, the next major step in our roadmap is the funding model review.
Over its 100-year history, the BBC has proven to be one of the most adaptable, innovative and forward- thinking media organisations on our planet. Across time, the BBC has shown its ability to open itself up to external scrutiny, reflect on challenges and find learning opportunities. We trust it will do so again, absorbing the findings of the mid-term review and improving its structures and processes—not as an end in itself, but to maintain the support of audiences and underline its purposes for truth telling and trust. We all rely on the BBC being the best it can be, and we need to set the foundations for its renewal in the 21st century as a vital British institution, not to protect the institution for its own sake, but because its purpose of truth seeking and having the highest quality content has been renewed and accepted as vital by the people and the nation we are elected here to serve.
Sir William Cash
May I commend the Minister not only on her speech just now, but on having continually engaged with me on the subject over the past few years? She has been dedicated to her task, and I do not come at this debate with rose-tinted spectacles; I have been critical of the BBC, and I will continue to be so on the terms I expressed. I am glad to note that she has said that the Government believe, as the mid- term review says, that there is room for improvement. That improvement is in part to do with attitudes and with statistical analysis and data, and I set all that out in my speech. It is also to do with the group-think that still gravitates in certain cohorts at the BBC and Ofcom, but I have made my point on that and it is on the record.
I accept entirely that this organisation, which has been going for so long, has an incredibly important role to play in our national life. It is precisely because it impinges day by day, hour by hour on our opinions, thoughts and attitudes that it is so important that impartiality is sustained in the correct manner and by reference to criteria; it should not be judge and jury. As Baroness Deech said in her letter in The Daily Telegraph on 23 January this year, the BBC requires a greater degree of independence, and she even referred to an independent ombudsman. I am not satisfied—the figures I have given perhaps illustrate it better, and there is a lack of sufficient proof—that the ECU system is working as well as some people hoped. I have deep misgivings about it, as I have expressed. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and these improvements, I hope as a result of this debate, will be examined in that light.
I simply say this to my hon. Friends on the Government side, and to those on the Opposition side, some of whom were somewhat more critical about what I have had to say than others. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I recognise that they really know what they are talking about and have enormous experience of these matters. This has been an important debate. I am sorry that the 30-odd colleagues who signed my application to the Backbench Business Committee have not been here today—their presence would have been lovely, but to some degree it reflects the difficult few weeks we have had—but, notwithstanding that, I am glad that we have had the debate.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response and to the other Members who participated. The debate has been more than worthwhile and is another landmark in considering the improvements that we can achieve in relation to the BBC in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I suspect that, like me, many of you have watched the Eurovision song contest for many decades with bated breath, expectation and hope. We wish Graham Norton well as he fronts the show this weekend, and we wish Olly Alexander incredibly well—we all hope that he will win. If any of you are free that night, Mr Fletcher, the Government Whip, tells me that he is having a Eurovision song contest party at his house, as will many people throughout the country. Good luck, everybody, on that contest.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the BBC mid-term charter review.
Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
More than nine years ago, I shared with the House the story of Mrs Lesley Hughes, who finally discovered in 2014 that she had been infected with hepatitis C back in 1970 by an NHS blood transfusion after a serious road traffic accident. For her and other severely affected constituents, I present this, the latest in a long series of similar petitions from all over the United Kingdom.
The petition of Mrs Diana Brooks and others states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of New Forest East,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002976]
Local Government Officials: Bullying
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I rise to consider the potential merit of Government measures to tackle the bullying of local government officials. This short debate seeks to explore the Government’s plans properly to provide for enforcement of the codes of conduct applicable to parish and town councillors, given the amount of bullying and intimidation experienced by local council clerks.
Far too many town and parish council clerks face regular intimidation by a minority of councillors, and there are at present insufficient enforcement mechanisms and penalties to resolve the issue. Good people are resigning as a result. The turnover rate for clerks is far greater than the average for most comparable forms of employment. An article in the Telegraph online on 1 October 2022 stated that a preliminary academic survey of town and parish councils
“found that over half…had experienced behavioural issues from councillors, including bullying and disrespect towards other representatives or clerks”.
The findings also showed
“an imminent loss of expertise amid a shortage of younger clerks”.
There are at least three important organisations with strong views about this worrying situation: the Association of Local Council Clerks, the National Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks. They are not unanimous in their recommendations, but they all recognise the reality of the crisis. All three have had constructive conversations with my staff and me in recent months, for which I am very grateful. The SLCC has stated:
“15% of parish councils experience serious behaviour issues… 5% are effectively dysfunctional as a result of them.”
That figure obviously varies to a degree over time, but the ALCC has recently indicated that it considers the problem to be worsening rather than improving.
I have been provided with deeply disturbing first-hand testimony of inappropriate behaviour by a small percentage of council members. It may only be one or two individuals on any given council, but the effect of their behaviour on the clerks, other councillors and other staff can be unbearable. It can easily cause a breakdown in health and subsequent departure from a much-valued career. Clerks often feel that their job is at risk unless they carry out the wishes of individual councillors, even though the councillor in question may be trying to act outside the legislative requirements, thus forcing the clerk to act illegally. I am advised that many clerks fear for their jobs on a daily basis.
In my view, much of the problem arises from the lack of an independent body to oversee councillor behaviour and to impose sufficient penalties to discourage such behaviour when it occurs. Sufficient codes of conduct are in place for councillors. They are usually clear, unambiguous and based on the Nolan principles, but their enforcement and the imposition of appropriate penalties when their provisions are broken are sadly missing. The standards board was abolished in 2012, and the current system of local authority staff enforcement —via monitoring officers—does not work as effectively as would an independent system. In May 2023, it was confirmed that, nationally, there is an excessive turnover of monitoring officers. That is hardly surprising, given that they have to take action in a quasi-judicial role, sometimes against their own councillors, who are their employers at principal authority level, while those councillors also possibly sit on town or parish councils, too.
As I mentioned, it is not only staff but other councillors who find themselves being bullied. I shall not identify any specific councils or individuals in this speech, yet I know of one case where several councillors resigned during a three-year period because of bullying by the chairman of that council. In a separate case, two councillors were called upon to step down after their attempts to bully the council clerk out of her job were proven. A third council was plunged into disarray after eight members resigned amid claims of bullying, harassment and abuse, and the town clerk also resigned at the same time and for the same reason.
There are very many specific examples which could be cited, because such misconduct has become so common as almost to be routine on the part of a really small but poisonous minority of councillors. Of course, the vast majority of councillors neither accept nor condone such terrible behaviour, but they do not have the necessary means to deal effectively with the disruptors and the bullies.
Sir Julian Lewis
Here is one scenario posted on the internet by a despairing councillor:
“We have a Parish Councillor who continually harasses the Clerk out of hours, at home and by email, about pretty well everything the Clerk does. The Clerk is respectful, knowledgeable and more than capable; but this individual said to the Chairman ‘I can question the Clerk because I am a Parish Councillor’. We have lost three Clerks in less than three years because of this dreadful man and I fear we are going to lose this one.”
Given findings such as the academic survey I mentioned earlier, this is clearly a situation that must not be allowed to continue. Apart from the impropriety aspect, the turnover of staff caused by bullying is economically damaging, leading to severe loss of efficiency in the affected parish and town councils. Then there are the additional recruitment and training costs for those councils which lose their clerks through resignation. Several councils have also been taken to court for constructive dismissal claims relating to harassment. Once again, this would be much less likely to arise if there were proper regulation and proper enforcement.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. I have a long-term interest in looking at workplace bullying across the piece and am bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on 7 June to ensure we have a legal definition for bullying, which we currently do not have in our suite of legislation. I hope he will be able to support the Bill. But beyond that, we must ensure there is a route to an employment tribunal so that people are protected at work. Would he be minded to work with me and support that, and to find the mechanisms to put positive behaviours into all workplaces?
Sir Julian Lewis
This is the first I have heard about the hon. Lady’s initiative. It sounds absolutely admirable and I would be very interested in supporting her efforts. I particularly commend the idea of a clear and legal definition of bullying, because we all know that there are sometimes subjective approaches to the subject, where even a word of legitimate criticism is interpreted as that, unjustifiably, so she is definitely on the right track.
The SLCC states:
“Throughout the sector, there are growing concerns about the impact bullying, harassment and intimidation is having on Councils, Councillors and staff and the resulting effectiveness of those local councils”.
The three national associations are fully aware of the issues, but without Government intervention it is unlikely that they alone can solve this dreadful problem. The preferred approach of the NALC is to focus on certain recommendations, previously made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which have yet to be adopted. Indeed, the NALC assisted me in the drafting of early-day motion 611, tabled in November 2022 and supported by 27 hon. and right hon. Members, which specifically asked the Government to:
“re-visit its response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report on local government ethical standards and introduce the report’s recommendations in full including tougher sanctions such as suspension for poorly behaving councillors.”
In addition to that, however, the SLCC and the ALCC have indicated their endorsement of an alternative option formulated by Mr Derek Biggs, the hugely experienced and highly respected former town clerk of Totton in my constituency, to whom I am indebted for his insights. This way forward, which I fully support, would be for the Minister to agree to set up a working party of experts in the area of town and parish councils to examine the issue in depth and recommend practical solutions to deal with it. The working party’s brief would be to ensure the design and establishment of an appropriate, independent enforcement body, and to propose legislation providing for penalties sufficient to act as a deterrent to transgressors. That would be one way of finally dealing with those who ignore the proper standards of behaviour that are rightly expected and approved by the Government. We really need to work together and end their sense of impunity in respect of unacceptable conduct in town and parish councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for raising this important subject, and also to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her helpful intervention. I look forward to her Bill.
I have been urged to be brief. As a fellow Welshman, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that that can sometimes be quite tricky, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), the Whip on duty, that he is keen to rush home to start making his cheese and pineapple hedgehogs in preparation for his Eurovision Song Contest party; we all look forward, of course, to his extended invitation. So I want to be serious but also to be as brief as I can, in respect for the House.
The debate is timely, because it comes just a week after elections to many of our town and parish councils up and down the land. I want to take the opportunity—as I have on previous occasions when I have met parish councillors—to put on record our sincere thanks for their service to their communities. They are always unpaid and usually unsung heroes, working to deliver change and improvements to the towns and villages in which they live and serve. I suppose I should declare a slight interest, having started my political career as a parish councillor before migrating to the district council, supposedly moving upwards to the county council, and then fetching up here. With the exception of membership of the other place, I have the full set of badges.
My right hon. Friend’s point is particularly important because the councillors elected last week are being welcomed to their new authorities and being inducted—for the first time, in some instances—into the rules and conventions of public life. We all know that vibrant local democracy flourishes where the reputation of the local authority is held in high regard. It is an honour and a privilege to serve as a community representative, and all those seeking and achieving public office should be holding themselves to the highest standards of conduct in recognition of the trust placed in them. The electorate have a right to expect councillors to behave well and respectfully in all their interactions—with each other, with members of staff, and with the public. Councillors’ decision making should be honest, demonstrably transparent, fair, objective, and in the best interests of all whom they serve. There is no place in our systems and structures of local government for bullying, intimidation or harassment.
My right hon. Friend’s remarks focused on bullying, intimidation and other inappropriate behaviour on the part of councillors. As he will know, there have been incidents where council clerks have effectively been charged with such offences, so it can go both ways. It is important to nip it in the bud and cut it out as quickly as possible—not just for the standards in public life set out by Nolan and reiterated this afternoon, but because it fundamentally sours the working environment of public service when people abuse their position, bully, cajole, intimidate and so forth in council meetings. As my right hon. Friend has noted, there are rules that apply.
I am concerned that we still occasionally think of our town councils, and especially our parish councils, as some sort of quaint, Edwardian and Vicar of Dibley-like institutions where people quibble about whose turn it is to do the biscuits or whatever. Instead, they are doing incredibly important work. As my right hon. Friend will know, there is no cap that we in central Government can place on the precepts of town and parish councils; we merely rely on their good common sense.
We know that many town and parish councils across the land have been asked to take up roles and responsibilities—the management of public loos, for example—on behalf of their upper-tier authorities, and they willingly do so. Those upper-tier authorities—be they borough, district or county councils—can be capped, and when there has been pressure on local government finances and close collaboration between the constituent parts of the local government family, some burdens have been passed on to lower-tier authorities.
My right hon. Friend is right to point out that there are some standards lacunae—I put it no more firmly than that. As he set out in some detail, there is a clear and growingly compelling case for having a look at this issue again. I would be more than happy to continue the conversations that I have had with NALC since I was appointed last November. I would include the ALCC and the SLCC, and I am more than happy to include my right hon. Friend in those discussions to try to find a common-sense route to go through.
Sir Julian Lewis
I shall seize on that potential opportunity to ask whether we could all come and see the Minister together. There are a lot of operators in this field, and to have him and representatives of the three organisations in the same room at the same time would be an extremely positive step.
Simon Hoare
I began my working day with an official visit to Croydon Council, followed by a visit to Slough Borough Council. Both were hugely enjoyable and rewarding, and the offer of being seized by my right hon. Friend during this Adjournment debate is an invitation I cannot resist. He makes a very important point, and I should have made that clear in my remarks. There is considerable and compelling merit to meeting the three bodies together. There is some overlap and some divergence of views, and different organisations will have different ways of seeing and identifying solutions to a problem. Let us have a roundtable, if one wants to call it that, or a meeting in the Department to try to identify the issues, and to try to deliver the simplest, easiest and most straight-forward solutions.
We would do so not to be unduly heavy-handed, or to impose the dead hand of Marsham Street on our vibrant town and parish councils, but because we hold dear, and view to be important and precious, those values of civility, transparency, decency, common sense and collegiality in all the fora in which elected or appointed people discharge public duties. That is an expectation that the public rightly place on all of us, and it is sometimes a challenge, but it is one to which we are all capable of rising. I look forward to furthering the discussion with my right hon. Friend.
I close by again thanking the hon. Member for York Central for her contribution, but I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East who, with his usual calm, methodical logic, put forward a compelling case that only a perverse Minister of the Crown could seek to resist.
Question put and agreed to.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 9th May 2024
(7 months, 1 week 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 9 May 2024 - (9 May 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have preliminary reminders for the Committee: please switch electronic devices to silent; no food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided; and Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, pass on their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or a similar, issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates.
Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate that when speaking to it. I will ask every Member to repeat the paragraphs that I have just read out at a later date.
We come first to clause 1. Would any Committee member like to move the amendments in the name of Giles Watling? No. In that case, we move on to debate clause stand part.
Clause 1
Sale of tobacco etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 37 stand part.
Clause 41 stand part.
Clauses 48 and 49 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Clauses 1, 37 and 48 change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, respectively. That replaces the existing legislation, which sets the age of sale at 18 years old. The clauses are core to the ambition of being the first country in the world to create a smoke-free generation, which is supported by the public, including a majority of retailers: nearly 70% of people support our plan to create a smoke-free generation. But why is it necessary?
First, this new age of sale will save tens of thousands of lives. Tobacco is devastating for the health of smokers. It is the single biggest preventable cause of death, responsible for about 80,000 deaths in the UK each year. Smoking causes one in four cancer deaths, including 70% of lung cancer cases. It is not just those who smoke who experience the harms; second-hand smoke also causes enormous harm to children, through no choice of their own.
There is no safe age to smoke. We know that 75% of smokers would never have started if they had the choice again, and those who start smoking as a young adult lose an average of 10 years of life expectancy. As we heard from the chief medical officer for England in his oral evidence session, individual smokers should never be blamed for the situation they are in. An incredibly wealthy and sophisticated marketing industry deliberately addicted them to something, at the earliest age it could get away with, and they have had their choice removed.
Secondly, this measure will boost our economy. Each year, smoking costs our economy a minimum of £17 billion, which is far more than the £10 billion income per year that the Treasury receives from taxes on tobacco products. That is equivalent to 6.9p in every £1 of income tax received. Therefore, reducing the prevalence of smoking will reduce these costs, helping our economy to become more productive.
On that note, reducing smoking will also cut the burden on the NHS. As Sir Stephen Powis outlined in his oral evidence, smoking impacts the NHS at all levels. Almost every minute of every day, someone is admitted to hospital with a smoking-related disease and over 100 GP appointments every hour are because of smoking. Reducing this burden will allow us to invest more in vital care, focus on major conditions and cut waiting lists.
Thanks to years of decisive Government action and stop-smoking support, smoking rates are coming down, but we want to build a brighter future for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I know that there are concerns about this policy, which were discussed at length on Second Reading. I want to reassure all colleagues that this policy is not about taking away people’s rights. There is no liberty in addiction and nicotine robs people of their freedom to choose.
I also urge all members of the Committee not to be taken in by the tobacco industry’s claims that the black market for tobacco products will boom. Before the legal smoking age was increased from 16 to 18, the tobacco industry sang from that same hymn sheet, but the facts drowned them out. The number of illicit cigarettes consumed actually fell by 25%, and smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third. In fact, consumption of illegal tobacco has plummeted from 17 billion cigarettes in 2000-01 to 3 billion cigarettes in 2022-2023.
To crack down on illicit tobacco and under-age tobacco and vape sales, we are putting an extra £30 million of new funding per year over five years into our enforcement agencies and we are working closely with enforcement colleagues to ensure that these measures are successfully implemented. And we have not forgotten current smokers. The measures in the Bill are accompanied by a suite of measures to support current smokers to quit. They include nearly doubling the funding for local stop-smoking services with an additional £70 million each year over the next five years, providing a new financial incentives programme to support pregnant women and their partners to quit, and providing additional funding for stop-smoking campaigns and to ensure that retailers and the public understand the changes in the law.
On Second Reading, there were also discussions about what products were in scope of the new restrictions. Let me clarify matters by saying that the new age of sale restrictions will apply to all tobacco products, including tobacco that is smoked, smokeless or chewed. When it is smoked, tobacco kills up to two thirds of its long-term users, and all smoked tobacco, including in shisha and cigars, is harmful. There is also clear evidence of the toxicity of heated tobacco in laboratory studies; the aerosol generated by heated tobacco contains carcinogens. I know that some of our colleagues have championed heated tobacco products as a smoking quit aid, but there are less harmful tobacco-free products that can support people to quit smoking.
Tobacco products such as paan, betel quid and chewing tobacco are also covered by the Bill. Tobacco that is not smoked is not a safe way to use tobacco. Using smokeless tobacco increases the risk of both mouth cancer and oesophageal cancer.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the speech she is making and of course I absolutely support all the measures in the Bill. One concern, which I think was raised on Second Reading, about paan and chewing tobacco is that they are currently not specified very clearly in the Bill. Is she planning to introduce any further measures, either in Committee or in regulation, to address this concern? One of the problems is that at the moment those products are freely sold in a range of different environments.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his very long-standing campaign to stamp out nicotine and tobacco. He is absolutely right that we will need to make it very clear to members of the public, retailers and health organisations our intention to stamp out all tobacco products, because they are all unsuitable for our smoke-free generation. I will make a note of his concern, take it away and make sure that the legislation makes things as clear as it possibly can.
The Bill also applies to cigarette papers, as do current age of sale restrictions. Their bleaches and dyes add to the volume of smoke and the range of toxicants in the smoke, contributing additional risks to smokers. Likewise, herbal cigarettes are included in the legislation, as they are harmful to health. Although their smoke does not contain nicotine or tobacco, it does contain cancer-causing chemicals, tar and carbon monoxide similar to a tobacco cigarette.
I will briefly mention clause 41, which amends the Scottish legislation to include herbal smoking products under provisions for age of sale, age verification policy, sales by under-18s, proxy purchasing and vending machines. With their harms outlined above, it is right that herbal smoking products be included within the current and future tobacco control legislation. By extending this legislation, Scotland will be aligned with the other UK nations. This measure will also support the effective implementation and enforcement of the Bill by providing consistency for enforcement officers, industry, retailers and consumers across the UK.
To complement the smoke-free generation policy, we are also bringing forward clause 2, which makes it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to purchase tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone born on or after 1 January 2009 in England and Wales; this is known as proxy purchasing. Proxy purchasing of these products by an adult for someone under age is already prohibited; the clause makes it an offence for any adult to buy these products for someone in the smoke-free generation—that is, born on or after 1 January 2009. That means someone might be caught by the offence if they are also too young to be sold the products themselves, but we did not want to overcomplicate the application of this offence.
We hope this measure will send a clear message to stop people trying to buy products for people under the age of sale. Proxy purchasing in Scotland and Northern Ireland will also be updated through clauses 37 and 48 to align with the new age of sale. These provisions are essential to ensure there are no loopholes in the age of sale legislation, and build on what we have found to work in the current age of sale legislation.
Finally, I present clause 49 to the Committee. The clause amends a provision in the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to provide the Department of Health in Northern Ireland with the power to amend the definition of “sale” to mean “sale by retail”. If the power is used, only sales from a retailer to a customer will be caught by the tobacco age of sale offence, which will therefore not include business to business sales, such as sales between a wholesaler and a retailer. This measure would bring the type of sales caught by the tobacco age of sale offence in Northern Ireland in line with those in England, Wales and Scotland. Fundamentally, the clauses included in this group are essential to implementing the smoke-free generation policy.
There is both strong cross-party and cross-nation support for these measures. It is clear that we all acknowledge the need to protect future generations from the harms of smoking. No one wants their children to ever start smoking. In England alone, it could prevent almost half a million cases of heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and other deadly diseases by the turn of the century, increasing thousands of people’s quality of life and reducing pressures on our NHS. Thanks to the collaborative work we have undertaken with the devolved Administrations, we have produced a Bill that will save lives right across the United Kingdom. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to serve on this Bill Committee. I will start with some general remarks about the context of this legislation.
This is an important Bill. As we heard on Second Reading, there is vanishingly little opposition to the central point that nicotine addiction is a scourge on our society, and that it is right the Government take steps to reduce its harms. Nicotine addiction cuts lives short and worsens healthy life expectancy disproportionately among more deprived communities; the toll it takes on the economy, and in particular on our NHS, far outweighs any benefit the Exchequer receives in taxes.
Labour proposed a progressive increase in the age of sale for tobacco in January 2023, and the Minister can be reassured that we will continue to support this Bill. If Labour win the next election—if we are privileged enough to do so—we will implement it. It will be a pleasure to genuinely lead the world on tobacco control, given that tobacco kills an estimated 8 million people a year.
The Chair
I am sorry to intervene, but you are very softly spoken—I think some people are struggling to hear.
Preet Kaur Gill
Right. However, that brings me to my second point. The Bill provides a number of powers for the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation, particularly on vapes. It is therefore important that we think carefully about how to achieve the objective of stopping young people from getting addicted to nicotine in the first place. Whoever the Government are after the next election, they will likely inherit those regulations, and some of them can be deceptively tricky to get right.
I want to ensure that whoever the next Government are, they have the powers they need to get a grip on this issue given that so recently this Government have not done so—when one in three vapes on the market is illicit, when youth vaping has trebled in two years, and when gaping loopholes in the law have undermined enforcement and put children at risk.
Vaping is a valuable stop-smoking tool, but those trends are a serious concern. There are areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope the Minister will listen closely to our arguments. The Bill is an opportunity to think about not just the public health challenge as it manifests today, but the challenge we will face in 10 years’ time. That is what a real agenda on prevention must do.
When the last Labour Government took office, one in four people in the country was a smoker. Every pub we walked into was clouded with the fumes, and one in 10 of our 11 to 15-year-olds smoked. When we banned smoking in public spaces and raised the age of sale to 18, we were met with a lot of opposition. Some of the charges put to us were like the ones we heard on Second Reading: that the law would be unenforceable, that it was an attack on working people and their culture, that it would fuel the illicit market, and so on. None of them held up.
Today the idea that children should be allowed to smoke or that non-smokers should have to tolerate deadly second-hand smoke is unthinkable. No one would think of making those arguments now. Just as the opponents of that legislation were wrong then, they are wrong now. Since 2007, the number of people who smoke has been cut by almost a third. The percentage of 15-year-olds who smoke regularly has dropped from 20% to 3%, and our understanding of second-hand smoke has grown. There has been a culture shift around where it is acceptable to smoke. Even at home, people go outside to smoke instead of smoking in front of their children. The year after the smoking ban came into effect, there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks according to The BMJ.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Could the hon. Lady tell me about the consumption of nicotine among people once the Government had brought in the smoking ban in public places? Was there a reduction in nicotine consumption among the people who continued to smoke because of the restrictions on where they could do so?
Preet Kaur Gill
I have just said that after the smoking ban came into effect, there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks. We saw a drop in people smoking—the data from The BMJ is already out there. By working towards a smoke-free future by progressively raising the age of sale, I hope that this Parliament can leave a similar legacy.
I turn to clause 1 and its equivalents for the devolved nations—probably the most important clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 of course changes the age of sale for tobacco products from 18 to a set date of 1 January 2009, meaning that anyone born on or after that date will never be able to legally buy cigarettes. It will progressively raise the age of sale by one year every year, so that the generation who are 15 now will—we hope—never smoke.
When the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), proposed the measure in January 2023, it was because we know that it will take fresh, radical thinking on public health to take the pressure off the NHS and get our ambition for a smoke-free future back on track. The rationale for the progressive approach, compared with what some MPs have argued for in raising the age of sale to 21, is that it is a radical but realistic way of phasing out tobacco over time. It means that no one loses a right they already have, but it does not limit its ambition to young people —there is no safe age to smoke.
I hope that a lead-in time of three years will be enough for us to get support to those under-18s who already smoke, so they are not affected by the time the legislation comes in. Will the Minister say whether she is planning a targeted campaign to ensure that we reach those young people, perhaps by working through schools? Almost two thirds of long-term smokers began smoking before they were 18. University College London has calculated that every day around 350 young adults aged 18 to 25 start smoking regularly, risking being trapped in a lifetime of addiction and premature death. The vast majority of smokers and ex-smokers—85%—regret ever starting in the first place, but it is infamously difficult to quit. Stopping people from starting is the single best way of saving them from a lifetime of potentially deadly addiction.
I reject the suggestion that the legislation will be uniquely difficult to implement or enforce. Labour raised the age of sale in 2007, and that is well understood and widely enforced.
Shopkeepers are already used to enforcing age of sale legislation, and we have initiatives like Challenge 25, so it would not be until 2034 that we enter the uncharted territory of routinely checking the age of customers who look 26 years old. I would expect by then that we would already be beginning to see a considerable reduction in the number of people still smoking under that age, but even then, arguably this legislation makes implementation easier: instead of having to ask for someone’s ID to compare their birth date against the current date, which involves doing maths in one’s head, it will be as simple as checking against one static date every time. I do not want to insult the intelligence of anyone working in retail, but that has formed part of the arguments of some of the Bill’s opponents, so I really want to call that out.
As for the right to feel protected and confident in their jobs, there is no doubt that violence against shop workers has risen in recent years, but that is why we in the Opposition have long campaigned for violence against shop workers to be a separate criminal offence. As with much recent legislation, I am glad that the Government have seen sense and followed Labour’s lead on that, too.
I know that some libertarian Conservative MPs have a philosophical objection to this legislation—the Business and Trade Secretary is one—but let us be honest: if we had known the social, public health and economic harms of smoking that we now know, would we not have legislated in similar terms long ago? Let us be clear: addiction is not freedom. The impact of second-hand smoke on the children of smokers is not freedom. It is certainly no freedom if, as is the case for two thirds of long-term smokers, one’s life is cut short as a result of smoking. It should be a source of pride if, from having the highest smoking rates in the world, we can successfully introduce genuinely world-leading legislation to phase out tobacco for good.
I want to make some brief remarks on other clauses. I have no substantial concerns about clause 2. For the Bill to work, it cannot be possible for adults over the legal age to buy tobacco on behalf of others who cannot buy it. It is obviously right that the clause avoids criminalising children by specifying that it applies to over-18s in its alignment with the commencement date in 2027. I see no issue with that.
I do, however, have questions about implementation. We have spoken a lot about physical retailers but less about online retailers. This is undoubtedly an enforcement challenge and I wonder what the Minister can say on that. In response to the consultation, the Government said that they were exploring how to enhance online age verification so that young people under the legal age cannot buy age-restricted products online. What progress have the Government made since the consultation response was published in February?
On clause 37, I want to pick up on the specifics of the Scottish age verification policy. Will the Minister explain the Government’s view on introducing additional requirements for retailers to establish an age-of-sale policy in the rest of the United Kingdom, in addition to the requirements in clause 1? I understand that the Bill would require the existing Challenge 25 policy to stay in effect in Scotland with legal force until the end of 2033, at which point over-25s will be within the legislation’s scope and then 1 January 2009 would take precedence again.
Finally, on clause 41, we support the amendment to Scottish regulations to include herbal cigarettes. Herbal cigarettes may not include tobacco or nicotine, but they are still harmful to health. Their smoke still contains cancer-causing chemicals, tar and carbon monoxide, similar to a tobacco cigarette. I am glad to see an alignment of approach across the UK nations on the point that no smoking product should be left out of the Bill’s scope. We also have no problem with the inclusion of clauses 48 and 49 to change tobacco control laws in Northern Ireland to align with the approach that we have discussed.
I reiterate that the Opposition support these clauses and we will reject attempts to amend them that would water them down. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to my questions.
Bob Blackman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to support the proposals outlined by the Minister. It came as quite a shock that one of the recommendations of the Khan review was that the age-of-sale be raised by a year every year. We on the all-party group on smoking and health —I declare my interest—thought that we would end up simply raising the age from 18 to 21, but I am delighted that we have moved from that position to one of literally creating a smoke-free generation.
The key point will always be free choice—the free choice that is made is to smoke that first cigarette; after that, the individual is addicted. To colleagues of mine who may be listening or considering this as an issue of freedom of choice, I say that one only makes one choice. After that, there is no choice because one is addicted and therefore required to continue to fuel that addiction. It is vital that we create this smoke-free generation.
One of the fundamental issues is enforcement rules and premises—I know we will come to that, so I will not pre-judge it, but this will be key. One of my concerns —I ask the Minister to think about this—is what will happen about duty-free sales and provisions that, at the moment, are outside the scope of the Bill. There will be temptations for young people on trips abroad to buy cigarettes, either abroad or at duty-free, and bring them back, or for others to do so and provide them to young people. Clearly, we would all want that to be an offence, but as I read the Bill, the provisions do not cover that. We need to think about strengthening the legislation in that area.
I do not want to go on for a long time; I am delighted with the Bill. I have been campaigning for this sort of action for many years, so it is a delight to see. We need to get it on the statute book as fast as possible.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhan. Let me open by welcoming the Bill. I think the Government have taken a brave and bold step in introducing such a significant public health intervention. I worked in respiratory medicine for 20 years, and I saw the devastating impact of smoking on so many of my patients.
We must remember that the industry exists in order to ensure that its customers become addicted to their product: nicotine. It profits as a result, as we learned in the evidence sessions, from some of the poorest communities in our country. The Bill will address not only that gross inequality, but the behaviours of the industry and, in particular, it will ensure that we have a healthier future going forward. The tobacco-free generation measures will have such an impact on young people as they grow up.
We also need to ensure that the public health messages are really driven home. As colleagues have said, there is no liberty once someone has started smoking. There is no liberation because they become enslaved to addiction—to the highly addictive product, nicotine. It is therefore important that the Bill is passed to give that liberty to so many people who regret having commenced the journey of smoking. We need to remind everybody that once they start smoking, it is incredibly difficult to give up. Smoking is a product that kills two thirds of its customers. Therefore, the only people who benefit from smoking are the industry, which profits extensively from the misery of others.
I will certainly support the Bill through its passage, but I believe that there are areas where it can be strengthened. One, in particular, is advertising. We know that this pernicious industry has learned so well how to get around legislation at every turn. It has been incredibly difficult to ensure that the legislation encapsulates the safeguards needed to prevent the industry from doing that, but I do think that there are some loopholes in the Bill that need to be addressed around promotion, advertising, sponsorship and ensuring that retailers are supported in relation to age verification.
Simplifying things in the Bill will help everybody when it is fully implemented. We have Challenge 25; it is easily understood, and young people are used to showing their ID. Introducing that here would be a logical step in being able to see those restraints, and it will also mean that there is no variation in how shopkeepers will apply the law. It will take out inequality for their sake, too. I hope that the Minister reflects on that as we get to those points in the Bill.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the provisions in the Bill and the contributions that have been made so far from both sides of the House. It is very important that we have a collective voice on this, wherever possible. We know that smoking is a leading cause of preventable death in Scotland and the rest of the UK. In 2022, smoking accounted for an estimated 8,942 deaths of those aged 35 and above in Scotland. We have also heard about the significant impact that smoking has on those who are already suffering from inequality and are in the most disadvantaged situations in our community.
The work on the Bill has been constructive, and it contains a number of measures pushed for by the Scottish Government; of course, part 2 specifically relates to Scotland. Jenni Minto, the Scottish Public Health Minister, has spoken positively about how Scotland has dealt with tobacco control measures, being a world leader. Although we know that there has been a reduction in the proportion of people smoking, it is still damaging far too many lives and killing too many people. We heard about the huge damage to the capacity of our NHS because of the difficulties caused by smoking, and the damage to people’s lives.
Scotland has long led the UK on tobacco control. We in the SNP really welcome this collaborative step towards creating a smoke-free generation. As the first UK nation to introduce an indoor smoking ban, and having led on the overhaul of tobacco sale and display law, we can clearly see the important steps we are taking and the significant, positive impact on public health that is possible. We support the new age regime and the greater powers for Scottish Ministers to tackle youth smoking and vaping. It would be very helpful to hear further about how it is anticipated that the powers will be used. We need to make sure that this works in practice.
I close by reflecting what others have said about the uniquely lethal and addictive nature of smoking, and the far-reaching problems it causes in people’s lives. We need to take whatever steps we can to prevent this addiction—so enthusiastically encouraged by the marketing teams of these industries—from taking hold in the first place. It is really important that we take all the steps available to us while we have this unique opportunity. We need to look at closing some small gaps, which I am sure we will discuss further. I would be very happy to hear from the Government Front Bench team about sponsorship, which is an interest of mine in terms of vapes, but I hope that we can make constructive progress on making this Bill a reality.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I appreciate the clear cross-party support for the measures in the Bill. I understand that hon. Members will have views on ways to amend or strengthen it, but I urge the Committee to appreciate how little time we have. As we heard clearly from last week’s evidence sessions—from the chief medical officers from all parts of the United Kingdom and from so many medical professionals—this is a very good Bill, so let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get this through.
I very much appreciate the welcome of all colleagues, and I assure them all that I will take away any suggestions and requests and come back with clear answers. Where something is relatively simple to do, we will seek to do that, but equally, as Members will appreciate, it is not always possible to accept every suggestion, no matter how well-meaning—and I absolutely accept that, in this Bill, it is always well-meaning.
I will answer the points that hon. Members specifically raised. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked about how we will encourage young people to quit smoking at an early stage. She will be aware that there are lots of measures to try to help people to stop, including the financial incentives that we are providing, particularly for those expecting a baby and their partners. There are also the quit aids to help people to swap to stop—to move to vapes, which I think we all recognise can be a useful quit aid. They are not harmless, but are less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
We are working at pace with online retailers on how to support them to ensure age verification, and I hope that we will be able to say more about that. The issue of duty-free sales is a tricky one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will appreciate, because we do not want to put the burden of legality on the purchaser. The idea is that it should be illegal to sell, and, of course, we have jurisdiction only in the United Kingdom, but I take his points on board and will come back to him on that.
The hon. Member for York Central is right that we need to do everything we can to stop advertising. There are already very strict rules around advertising, and smoking and vaping are severely restricted when it comes to advertising to children. But I think—I hope that the hon. Lady will agree—that the vaping measures, including the powers to limit packaging, flavours and in locations in stores, will do a lot to reduce the appeal to children, which I know we are all incredibly concerned about.
Dr Johnson
I say, first, that I fully support this Bill and what it intends to do. Having worked in respiratory medicine in my very first job as a doctor, I saw far too many people suffering from and dying of respiratory illness, and suffering through the final years of their life due to respiratory illness caused by smoking. I think this is excellent legislation.
My right hon. Friend talked about advertising being quite restricted, but, with vaping, we see sports teams—rugby teams and football teams—using vaping brands as adverts for children. These are not recreational substances, or should not be recreational substances. They are supposed to be quit aids and do not need advertising where children can see them.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. She will be interested to know that I have recently written to the Advertising Standards Authority to ask about how well it considers enforcement to be working, and what more it can do to enforce the already strict regulations. I am happy to share its response, when it comes, with all members of the Committee.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will give way to the hon. Member for York Central and then to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for the work that she is doing in this area, but clearly, for vaping, there is not equality with smoking in terms of an advertising ban. For simplicity’s sake, equalising the law would make a significant difference. We often think about packaging in shops, but today, the social media space is an incredibly powerful tool that young people are exposed to on a continuous basis. Therefore, extending the advertising, promotion and sponsorship ban could have such a significant impact, and it could be legislated for simply. As we have got so accustomed to the advertising ban for tobacco products, it can simply be translated for vapes. Will the Minister look into that?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
With your permission, Dame Siobhain, I will take the intervention on the same subject from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire.
Kirsten Oswald
Is the Minister able to tell us a bit more about the interaction with the Advertising Standards Authority? What jurisdiction does it have in relation to the advertising of vapes on football strips, for instance? Is it not in fact our job to deal with that, rather than the job of the Advertising Standards Authority?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
In response to all those points, I am extremely sympathetic to the need to clamp down on advertising. It seemed to me, when I came to the Bill, that it was important to get a “Where are we now?”-type assessment of what the current regulations say, how well they are being enforced and what more needs to be done. Like many colleagues, I am interested to hear what the Advertising Standards Authority has to say about that, and I am sure we will come back to this subject.
The hon. Member for York Central raised age verification. As she knows, retailers will be required to challenge and seek age verification from those who are born on or after 1 January 2009. As the Bill continues its passage, we will look at the amendments that have been tabled and consider whether there is a need to change that age verification requirement. At the moment, I think the Bill strikes the right balance. As I said at the beginning, it is essential that we make progress with the Bill in the short time remaining in this Parliament.
The hon. Lady’s points about the visitor economy were well made. It is essential that we ensure wide communication about the new measures in stores, at the point of sale; to retailers, who will have just over two years to enforce this legislation and undertake the training; and to members of the public. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Tobacco vending machines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The clause restates the ban on tobacco vending machines in England and Wales. This prohibition came into force in 2011 in England and 2012 in Wales through regulations made under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which made it an offence for anyone who manages or controls premises to have a tobacco vending machine available for use. The offence applied to selling both tobacco products and herbal smoking products from a vending machine. Herbal smoking products were included due to their harmful nature when smoked.
The prohibition was originally introduced because tobacco vending machines were largely unsupervised and allowed under-age access to tobacco. In 2010, 8% of 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly smoked said that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes. This policy has successfully reduced smoking rates among young people and has been effective at enabling the age of sale restrictions to be implemented and enforced properly.
The existing legislation has been restated to provide a coherent narrative in the Bill on tobacco measures and to assist with the tidying of the statute book. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
We of course support the aims of this clause, which as the Minister said, effectively restates regulations that were introduced under the previous Labour Government, making the person who controls or is responsible for the management of premises where a vending machine is located liable to commit an offence if tobacco sales are made.
We are concerned about how easily children could access tobacco from vending machines, and the availability of tobacco from machines undermines efforts by adult smokers to quit. As the Minister said, when Labour introduced these regulations, evidence showed that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes for 12% of young people aged 11 to 15 who were regular smokers. I venture that is 0% now, so the measure has been effective. Why has she decided to re-enact existing law on that matter through the Bill, given the existing regulations?
On a wider point, the purpose of those regulations was to stop children readily accessing tobacco products, but I note that the Bill contains no similar provisions on the availability of other vaping and nicotine products through vending machines. I would be surprised if her officials had not looked at this issue, but there is no mention of vending machines in the entire 164-page impact assessment, despite reports of new vending machines being introduced in England that include an automated age-verification feature.
I am keen to hear the Minister’s thinking on that point. Could vending machines undermine other regulations in the Bill that are providing powers to regulate vape and nicotine product points of sale and displays, as well as reinforcing and closing the loopholes on the age of sale?
Dr Johnson
I welcome clause 3. It is sensible that we protect children from having easy access to products that we have decided should be age-restricted, and it is clearly sensible that tobacco products be age-restricted —that is part of the purpose of the whole Bill. However, clause 3 does not extend to vaping products or other nicotine products. We know that the use of such products is becoming increasingly prevalent among children.
As the Minister knows, I have tabled new clause 16, which would create the same offence for nicotine-containing products or vaping products to be sold in vending machines because they are age-restricted. It is not usual to have age-restricted products in vending machines and it is my view that children would quickly find a way round machines that are supposed to check their age. Will the Minister look at that sympathetically?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The purpose of clause 3, as with a lot of the clauses that we will debate in line-by-line consideration of the Bill, is to tidy up the statute book for the whole tobacco regime, both to align all four nations and to make sure there is a clear understanding of the law where it relates to tobacco, tobacco products and vaping. The fundamental purpose is to tidy up the statute book by restating it with clarity at this critical time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made a point about vaping and vending machines. As she will be aware, the Government are taking powers in the Bill to look at issues such as location of sale, packaging and flavours. It was felt that it was important to have further consultation under those powers to look at issues such as whether vaping products should be sold in vending machines. It will be debated at a future time under those regulations. The key point is that we have clarity in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that information. She talks about location of sale. I understood location of sale to refer to a geographical location, rather than a method of sale, such as through vending machines. Could she be clearer on that point?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will get back to my hon. Friend on that point, which is a good one. This clause and many others are intended to tidy up the statute book, rather than to introduce new subjects that would be more appropriately considered somewhere else.
Kirsten Oswald
I wonder whether I can reflect some of the Minister’s words back to her. She talks about clause 3 providing clarity, but I am afraid that I do not think it provides clarity—it adds a degree of confusion. This is the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and it is reasonable that people look for measures relating to both those products. It adds an unwelcome level of confusion for us to deal so differently with vapes.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her views. As I said earlier, I will take away all the views expressed in Committee and reflect on them. I am grateful to her for her comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Sale of unpackaged cigarettes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 4 and 38 restate that it is an offence if tobacco retailers do not sell cigarettes in the packaging in which they are supplied. Selling unpackaged cigarettes is currently an offence in England, Wales and Scotland under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. The prohibition was originally introduced to reduce smoking among children, because there was evidence that children were purchasing single cigarettes. As with clause 3, we have included these provisions to help to tidy up the legislation related to the age of sale for tobacco products, so that it is clear for tobacco retailers, enforcement agencies and other relevant parties across the UK.
The clauses ensure that the sale of loose cigarettes continues to be prohibited and that cigarettes are sold in the appropriate packaging. Additionally, clause 38 inserts the definition of “retail packaging”, aligning with the definition used in England and Wales. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
Clause 4 is another that re-enacts existing law that we support. The sale of unpackaged cigarettes is a practice used to short-circuit the enforcement of age of sale law and other regulations such as flavour bans, and only benefits the illicit trade.
Particularly now that the Government have introduced the track and trace system, packaging is useful in monitoring the flow and patterns in the trade in tobacco products around the country. However, it is notable that the clause opts to restate the law’s focus on cigarettes instead of other products. In 1991, the Government faced a lot of opposition from Members on their Back Benches when they proposed to include cigars in the definition, so can the Minister tell us why she has not considered extending the provisions and treating other tobacco products in the same way? Can she reassure me that trading standards has not found instances of, for example, cigars or hand-rolling tobacco being kept and sold unpackaged, and that that does not have the potential to be a loophole that will later need to be closed?
Bob Blackman
We have to consider the various tactics used by big tobacco. I campaigned long and hard for the standardised packaging of tobacco products, which was finally achieved, and one of my concerns then was the way that packaging is used to attract young people to start smoking. I support the provisions, but one concern might be that big tobacco will respond by reducing the number of cigarettes in a pack and selling them at a cheaper price. Will there be regulations to ensure that, for example, companies cannot sell them in single packs? We have to think about what these evil people will do to sell and push their product. Very simply, can we look at something to ensure that they cannot do that?
Rachael Maskell
I support the points that have already been made, but I will not repeat them, because they have been made eloquently.
Why is the fine in clause 4(2) only at level 3, whereas elsewhere in the legislation the fines are at level 4? We know that cigarettes being sold as single items, and packs being broken up and sold in that way, encourages people to smoke. We also know that they will be targeted at children and young people, as well as people in greater deprivation.
There are 14.5 million people in our country who are living in poverty, and there is a much higher prevalence of smoking in that population. The increase in the price of tobacco products has been a major determinant of how much people smoke and whether people smoke at all. It therefore seems perverse that the fine applied to breaking up cigarette packs is less than that applied elsewhere in the Bill, where there is a level 4 fine. Can the Minister explain the reasoning behind dropping the level of fine? Why is it not in line with the other measures in the Bill?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I do not have all the answers to hon. Members’ questions. The purpose of the clause is to restate and clarify the statute book, so the answer to many of the “Why haven’t you done this or that?” questions is that the intention was to tidy up the statute book rather than address all the other potential issues that could be solved. I will certainly come back to hon. Members with the answers to their questions.
As colleagues will appreciate, there are thousands of potential add-ons to the legislation, but it is important to remember that the core purpose of the Bill is to create the smoke-free generation. On those well-made points and suggestions, I do not know whether they were considered and ruled out or whether they were not considered, but I will come back to hon. Members with answers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Age of sale notice at point of sale: England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 6 stand part.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clause 50 stand part.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 5 and 6 introduce a requirement for age of sale notices in England and Wales to align with the new age of sale for tobacco products. Additionally, clause 42 provides Scottish Ministers and clause 50 provides the Department of Health in Northern Ireland with the powers to make provisions about warning statements. Warning statements are notices that reflect the new age of sale requirements. Age of sale notices currently must state in a prominent position:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18”.
Clauses 5 and 6 update the wording of the notices so that they now reflect the requirements of the new age of sale. They will therefore state:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”,
alongside the Welsh translation of the statement in Wales.
Additionally, under clauses 5 and 6, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers have been granted powers to introduce further requirements on the size or appearance of the notice. This allows for colour requirements and other changes to be introduced in the future should they be needed. Clauses 42 and 50 provide Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland with the same powers to set requirements.
Similar powers on the appearance of the age of sale notices have previously been included in legislation and regulations have been made, but these powers broaden the scope of the provisions. We do not anticipate requiring further amendments beyond the text of the age of sale notices prior to the change in the age of sale.
The updated wording on age of sale notices will support tobacco retailers in implementing the new age of sale restrictions by helping to clarify and underline it for customers and staff. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I support the clause. For consistency and public acceptability, it is important that there is clear and consistent messaging to help the public understand the changes. It is already a requirement for premises to display notices to sell tobacco to under-18s, so I cannot see there being any issue in the implementation of the clause. Indeed, it is in the interests of retailers to have standardised notices across shops as we know that asking for ID is an issue that can cause customers to give shop workers grief at the till. When someone can say, “I am sorry, but it is the law and I could be fined or even have my ability to sell these products taken away,” that will greatly aid them in their job.
When customers can see that there is consistency across all retailers and that there is not the scope to twist anyone’s arm or get the impression that the issue is not taken seriously, we will see more people follow the rules. As we would expect, the responses to questions in the consultation were overwhelmingly supportive, with opposition mainly limited to arguments against the progressive rise in the age of sale.
Will the Minister comment on the consideration she has given to other forms of words, some of which she mentioned? Should the wording of the notice be limited to the focus on the age of sale and not, for example, proxy sales? Although one is the responsibility of the retailer and the other of the customer, would it not reinforce the understanding of the law and make people think twice about committing that offence? Will she set out the Government’s thinking on that? However, I support the clause.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. The clarity of the single message is, on balance, considered to be more important. If it is absolutely clear that products may not be sold to anyone who meets the 1 January 2009 criterion, that clarity and simplicity makes the message more punchy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Sale of vaping products to under 18s
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Clause 44 stand part
Clause 51 stand part.
Government amendment 25.
Clause 53 stand part.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Before I speak to the clauses, I want to set out, for the purposes of clarity, what we mean when we refer to vapes. Different terminology is used in law, depending on whether we are referring to legislation for England and Wales, for Scotland or for Northern Ireland. However, although there may be minor differences in terminology, the products are the same. When referring to vapes, e-cigarettes or nicotine vapour products, I will use the generic term “vapes” throughout.
Vaping is never recommended for children. It risks addiction and unknown long-term health impacts while their lungs and brains are still developing. These clauses are important to ensure that vaping products and nicotine products cannot easily be accessed by children.
Clause 7 will mean that it continues to be an offence to sell a nicotine vape to a person under the age of 18 in England and Wales, and anyone found guilty of the offence will be liable to pay a fine of up to £2,500 if convicted. The clause will also extend that age of sale restriction to non-nicotine vapes, as we know that children are accessing those products. The provision on non-nicotine vapes will come into force in both England and Wales six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to allow retailers time to introduce the measure. The clause provides businesses with certainty about whom they may legally sell products to, and reinforces our health advice that children should never vape.
Clause 8 will mean that it continues to be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a nicotine vape on behalf of a person under the age of 18. The clause will also extend those restrictions to non-nicotine vapes. Non-nicotine vapes may be used as a gateway for children to start using nicotine vapes, which is why the clause extends the scope of the current restrictions to include non-nicotine vaping products.
Clause 9 will close an existing loophole and make it an offence to give away a vaping product, or a coupon that can later be redeemed for a vaping product, to someone under the age of 18 in England and Wales. Given the clear and unambiguous health advice that children should not vape, and the fact that under-18s cannot legally be sold a nicotine vape, it is completely unacceptable that the industry is not prohibited from giving free samples of vapes to children. That loophole needs to be closed to ensure that we can protect children from addiction and potential health harms.
Clause 44 will amend Scottish legislation to extend existing regulation-making powers to prohibit or restrict the free distribution and nominal pricing of vapes to cover nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Regulation-making powers on the sale of nicotine products to under-18s, on proxy purchasing and on free distribution to under-18s are provided for England and Wales in clause 10 and will be discussed separately.
Similarly, clause 51 will give the Department of Health in Northern Ireland regulation-making powers to prohibit the sale of non-nicotine vaping products to persons under 18. That will align with measures in the Bill for England and Wales and with measures already in place in Scotland for this offence. To ensure alignment across the UK, clause 53 will provide the Department of Health in Northern Ireland with regulation-making powers to prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products and non-nicotine vaping products to those under the age of 18. I commend clauses 7 to 9, 44, 51 and 53 to the Committee.
Government amendment 25 to clause 53 was tabled at the request of the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. It will change the mode of trial and maximum penalty for an offence of free distribution of nicotine products or non-nicotine vaping products in Northern Ireland, removing the potential for anyone convicted of the offence to be imprisoned. Instead, on conviction, the penalty will be a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale in Northern Ireland. That small change will align the penalty that could be imposed with the penalty for the age of sale offence for vapes in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is a more proportionate penalty for the offence. For those reasons, the UK Government accept the amendment.
Preet Kaur Gill
First, I want to make some general points about these first vaping-related clauses of the Bill. We agree fundamentally with the Government in their efforts to find a balance by phasing out tobacco use and cracking down on youth vaping while being careful not to undermine the proven success of vaping as a stop-smoking aid. There is no doubt, however, that the rise in youth vaping is a serious concern.
My main question about the Government’s response is “What took them so long?” Labour proposed measures more than two years ago to stop vapes being branded and marketed to appeal to children, but that was blocked by the Government. I am glad that the Government have listened to us. I hope that they will continue to do so as we debate the Bill; I firmly believe that some of its provisions can still be strengthened.
I am pleased by the inclusion of clause 7. Coupled with clause 34, which defines a vaping product in a way that includes non-nicotine vapes, it will tackle a substantial loophole that we have been calling on the Government to close for a long time. Youth vaping is a serious and growing issue. In 2021, Labour voted for an amendment to the Health and Care Bill to crack down on the marketing of vapes to children. Since then, according to the most recent survey by Action on Smoking and Health, the number of children aged 11 to 17 who are vaping regularly has more than trebled. That is more than 140,000 British children. Meanwhile, one in five children have now tried vaping. In clause 7, a couple of issues therefore intertwine.
I think most people would be surprised to learn that it is legal to sell non-nicotine vapes to children, which could so obviously be designed as a gateway to addiction to the real thing, as the Minister mentioned. It is doubly concerning when we think about the illicit vapes that end up on British shelves. Testing by Inter Scientific, from which we heard last week, has found that a considerable percentage of seized vaping products that it tested contained nicotine, even when they were marketed as 0%.
That is highly concerning. It means that for the past several years, we may have seen a spate of accidental addictions among children. According to survey data from ASH, 9.5% of vapers aged 11 to 17 exclusively puff on so-called 0% nicotine vapes. Analysis of that and of data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that at least 40,000 child vapers could have been exposed to nicotine-containing vapes without their consent, becoming accidentally addicted by illegal products masquerading as nicotine-free that, under existing regulations, they are allowed to buy. That is an important testament to why not just regulation, but effective enforcement— especially over the illicit market—is vital to the success of the Bill.
The two-tier system of regulation for nicotine and non-nicotine vapes is not robust. The exclusion of non-nicotine vapes from the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 is important for a few reasons. Primarily, it is confusing and more difficult to enforce the rules on the ground if it is not clear which products contain nicotine and which do not. As 0% nicotine vapes are out of the scope of the current regulations, they do not need to be notified through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency process, on which trading standards officers often rely to identify illicit products. I raised that point with the Minister in a debate in January and am keen to seek clarity. Does the Minister think that all producers should have to notify vape products, regardless of nicotine content, to the MHRA?
I note that clause 71 provides the power to extend the notification process to non-nicotine vapes, but the Government have not, to my knowledge, explicitly expressed a view on the matter. Will the Minister do so now? In theory, including non-nicotine vapes in the notification process should allow for a complete database of products. Currently, it is difficult to identify which products are legal or illegal, which really undermines enforcement action.
As we heard in evidence, the impact of vaping products on the developing bodies of children has the potential to be very harmful. It is vital that we take every step to make sure that our systems of regulation and enforcement are as robust as possible to stop a new generation of products hooking our children on nicotine and harming their long-term health. We absolutely support the clause, and I am keen to hear the Government’s view on the issues that I have raised.
I have no substantial comments to make about clause 8. It is a common-sense reapplication of the principles of clause 2, which we have debated and which I support.
Clause 9 will finally address a loophole that I regret to say the Opposition raised in an amendment to the Health and Care Bill in 2021; I am glad that it is now receiving the Government’s attention. Our 2021 amendment would have prohibited the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under-18s. The then Minister rejected the amendment. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham:
“There was no evidence of a serious problem, but the Minister sympathised with the argument for preventive action.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 56.]
Two and a half years later, it is clear what a widespread issue this has become. It goes without saying that Opposition support clause 9, which will close the loophole, as well as clause 44, which will introduce powers for the Scottish Government to extend the existing powers to regulate the free distribution of vapes and other nicotine products such as pouches, as mentioned by the Minister. Likewise, clause 51 will mean that age of sale restrictions can be extended to non-nicotine vaping products.
Finally, clause 53 relates to the free distribution of vapes and nicotine products in Northern Ireland, whether or not they contain nicotine. As I have discussed, I am very concerned that that has presented a loophole that has undermined enforcement, so I support a consistent approach across the United Kingdom. May I ask the Minister to set out what the words “in the course of business” will mean in practice when it comes to the free distribution of harmful products, given that we would expect any person caught out by the provision to argue that there is no “business” in giving away something for free? Of course, we know that that is not true in the case of addictive products, but I will be grateful if the Minister can reassure me that the clause will do in practice what it needs to do. Can she also please reassure me that it will not prohibit under-18s from accessing nicotine replacement therapies?
I reiterate that the Opposition support these clauses, but I am very interested in the Minister’s views on how the Bill should affect the notification process for vapes.
Dr Johnson
I welcome the clauses. I have been very concerned about the number of children who are taking up vaping and about its effects. We have heard in evidence, both in the Health and Social Care Committee and last week in this Committee, about the dangers of vaping for children who have never smoked. The chief medical officer has made it extremely clear that for someone who smokes, vaping may be better for them, but that someone who does not smoke should not vape. These measures will help to reduce the number of children who have access to such products, which is good. They will also close the loopholes for free samples and non-nicotine vapes, which can provide a gateway to such awful addiction.
We have also heard how nicotine in general is not just very addictive but harmful to children’s developing brains, and how getting them hooked early makes it more difficult for them to quit in the long term. We have heard about how children in schools are struggling to concentrate when leaving lessons to consume nicotine, which is having an impact on their education and wellbeing. We have heard from health experts about small particles going into children’s lungs, without our knowing what the long-term effects of that might be. I welcome any clause that will help to reduce the number of children vaping.
I do have one question. The cross-heading before clause 7 is “Vaping and nicotine products”, but clause 7 only makes it an offence to sell a vaping product to a person under the age of 18, rather than also making it an offence to sell all other nicotine products, although the capacity to do so is set out later in clause 9. I am just wondering why the Minister is taking a power to restrict nicotine product sales but is not actually doing so. We are starting to see that children at school are using nicotine pouches that are available in all sorts of different flavours. I can see nicotine pouches becoming the next way for the industry to try to hook children on nicotine. Has the Minister considered getting ahead of the game by saying that nicotine products cannot be sold to children at all?
Kirsten Oswald
Is the hon. Lady reflecting, as I am, on the comments that we heard in evidence about the link between professional footballers and some of these products? There is an obvious interest and attraction in these kinds of products for the very young people we are concerned might take up vaping.
Dr Johnson
Yes. Sportspeople, as we know, are very influential on young people. To promote products that are potentially harmful to children is morally wrong, in my view. They need to be careful to think about the effects that they may be having on children.
My question to the Minister is whether she will consider extending clause 7 outright to include nicotine products for children. We need to support children who are smokers or vapers and wish to quit, but those children can get nicotine replacement products from their GP on prescription. There is no need for those products to be sold to children.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, welcome the fact that legislation is at last being supported by the Government and is before us today. I have deep concern about the impacts of vaping—and not just on physical health, although much research clearly needs to be done to understand the extent of that. In the Health Committee, we saw a paper on the DNA methylation changes that take place in the oral cavity. We have not seen the impact on the lungs, because that would require more invasive sampling, but the evidence shows that much research needs to be done to understand the implications of vaping on physical health.
I am also concerned that we are looking only at the age of 18. I understand the Government’s reasons—clearly, young people can readily become addicted to the nicotine in these products, and I welcome the measures to restrain that—but I have serious concerns about those over 18 who commence vaping. I understand that a paper will be coming out in Sweden showing that people move from vaping to smoking, so I am concerned that there could be unintended consequences if we do not take more extensive measures on vaping.
I absolutely understand that the Government are using the Bill to send a clear public health message that vaping is safer than smoking and that smoking kills, so if people can move from smoking to vaping, that is a positive health change. However, we do not yet know the extent of the harm that can be done by vaping, so we could well be back here again if we do not put proper measures in the Bill to facilitate more action more rapidly, should evidence come forward on the impacts of vaping.
I have talked about physical health, but we know that vaping involves an addictive product, and we do not want to see another generation of people becoming addicted to a nicotine product. We must recall that the vaping industry, like the tobacco industry of old—well, it is still in existence—has the sole interest of bringing forward another generation of people who are addicted to a substance, to ensure that those people buy its products and it profits. Leaving individuals with that dependency means that they are in bondage not only financially but in terms of their health. We must ensure that we properly examine the scope of the challenges involved in leaving over-18s exposed.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very informed speech, but I want to pick up on one thing. She said that the sole purpose of the vaping industry is to get people addicted to vaping, but does she acknowledge that many people across the UK, and particularly adults, as we heard in evidence, have reduced their addiction through vaping? They are tapering down the amount of nicotine they are using, as opposed to when they were smoking. We also heard that there were some health benefits from people moving from smoking to vaping.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she made. Certainly, I did highlight that transitional benefit of moving from smoking to vaping to, hopefully, stopping altogether. However, we must also highlight that vaping is not without risk, and we need to give that serious consideration. I am just concerned that the Government are slightly light, shall I say, in terms of their concern about vaping, in order to drive down the smoking. I absolutely understand that, because smoking kills, but I just think that we could be on the “too light” side. I know that it is about balance, but I hope that we can reflect on that during the course of the Bill.
I want to draw out one question that I have about clause 9 and giving away vapes. I certainly understand why the measures would be applied to industry, but I want to ask about public health measures that could be deployed. I recognise that the clause is about under-18s, but unfortunately, despite the current legislation, we know that many people under 18 smoke, and we obviously need to ensure that they stop and move into a safer space. The Government have been very much pressing the idea that vaping is a route out of smoking. Does the Public Health Minister see vaping as a means to help people under the age of 18 to stop smoking, or will they have no access to vapes? I would just like some clarity around that. Clearly, there are other smoking-cessation programmes and products available, but it would be useful to know the answer to that question. If vaping is to be used in that way, and clinicians are to be able in future to prescribe or indeed provide vapes for young people to stop smoking—if that was the only tool—we need to understand whether we are to have a blanket ban in the Bill. It would be very useful to understand that.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Once again, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and considered remarks —I really do appreciate them. Essentially, the questions are pretty much around the product notification and the availability of quit aids to under-18s. Hon. Members may not have spotted this, but the notification of vapes to the MHRA is something on which we are taking powers. There will be a further consultation on that point because it did not come under the scope of the original consultation. We will have the powers to require notification of vapes to the MHRA.
The other point that has been raised by a few colleagues is, “How do we help under-18s to stop smoking?” Under the MHRA, there is licensed nicotine replacement therapy, which is licensed for 12 to 18-year-olds. Of course, all under-18s can go to their local stop-smoking services.
To the point from the hon. Member for York Central about whether young people should be able to access vaping as a quit aid, my instinct would be, “No, absolutely not,” and I think that that would be her instinct also. However, I must slightly correct the record: it is certainly not the Government’s position that vaping is in any way safe; it is merely less harmful than smoking. I would reiterate that if you don’t smoke, don’t vape. And children should never vape, so they should not be turning to vaping, even as a quit aid. In my view, that would also be the thin end of the wedge, because people would simply say, “Well, I am only vaping because I am trying to stop smoking.” I cannot imagine that ever being a suitable way to help children to stop.
Bob Blackman
One issue that has been raised in the debate is non-nicotine vapes and the potential to get people on to vaping, followed by the escalation, presumably, to nicotine and then, potentially, as has been mentioned, to cigarettes. What action will my right hon. Friend take—although not necessarily in these clauses—to make sure that that escalation path cannot be followed?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The legislation covers non-nicotine vapes, and unfortunately, as has been pointed out, a number of illicit so-called non-nicotine vapes have up to 30% nicotine content, which has completely undermined the argument for those. Quite clearly, they are designed by the industry to get people hooked on the idea of vaping so that it can get people on to higher nicotine levels in due course. That is why the legislation covers non-nicotine vapes and all tobacco and vaping products.
Preet Kaur Gill
What more can the Minister do about the growing illicit market in vapes? The MHRA’s evidence was interesting; it said that a lot of what is in the notification process is considered illicit, but the Minister did not have the figures and she was going to provide those to us. There is an issue there in terms of triangulation and what trading standards has found to be illicit and not compliant with the notification process. At the moment, the MHRA does not have the powers to withdraw those products; it is down to the provider themselves to remove them from the notification process and then to become compliant and to reapply again. That does not seem to be the right approach, because the manufacturers are marking their own homework in terms of what they are notifying. The Minister also recognised that what might have been notified and what actually comes into the country are very different. There has to be a better way of ensuring that we grip the illicit vapes market—hence the requirement for the notification process to include non-nicotine vapes that contain nicotine.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The key point is that legal vaping products must be notified to the MHRA. If they are compliant, they go ahead. If they are not compliant, they go away and make themselves compliant. That is how the system works at the moment. With illicit vapes, it is an entirely different issue. I can point the hon. Lady to the evidence. When the age of smoking was raised from 16 to 18, the number of illicit cigarettes reduced significantly, so it is our expectation and hope that the same will be true with illicit vapes.
At the same time, as the hon. Lady will be aware, there was an announcement to impose an excise duty on vapes. A benefit of that, which she and I remarked on after the evidence sessions last week, is that we hope that that would enable His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enter the vape market into the track and trace that already exists for cigarettes and therefore to have much better control over what products come on to the market. I am sure we will talk further about that during the passage of the Bill.
Preet Kaur Gill
On that basis, does the Minister think that the MHRA should have the powers to test a percentage of products that come on to the market, given that we already know that what is being notified to it is non-compliant and given what is coming into the country? I appreciate her comments on the excise duty, but does she have a timescale for when we could see a track and trace system, as we have for tobacco, extended to vapes?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will know, the MHRA is not an enforcement body; enforcement is for trading standards. As I mentioned earlier, there will be new resources for trading standards, as well as new training and guidelines. Also, fines will go direct to local authorities, which employ enforcement officers, so there will be a huge ramping-up of enforcement on illicit vapes, non-compliant vapes and so on. That is the place for enforcement.
On the MHRA and notification of other types of vapes, there will be powers, and the consultation will take place in due course.
Rachael Maskell
While the Minister is doing the work on vapes, will she also look at nicotine pouches, which are incredibly concerning? We have heard that the strength of the nicotine in pouches far exceeds that in vapes. People are therefore getting a very high dose of nicotine and are sometimes not aware of the level they are getting.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am frantically looking through my pack here. Clause 10 covers nicotine pouches, so we will come on to that—[Interruption.] The Whip is saying it will be after lunch, if that is not too much of a sneaky “get out of jail” card. With the hon. Lady’s acceptance, I will defer that until later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Aaron Bell.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 9th May 2024
(7 months, 1 week 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 9 May 2024 - (9 May 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Welcome back, everyone.
Clause 10 provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England, and Welsh Ministers, to extend the offences relating to the sale, purchase and free distribution of vapes to other consumer nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches. Clause 43 gives Scottish Ministers the equivalent regulation-making powers. Part 3 of the Bill provides for similar measures for Northern Ireland, which will be discussed separately. The measures will ensure that we have a consistent approach across our nations to protecting children from accessing other nicotine products and being exposed to the health harms and addictive nature of nicotine. They also address a point that was raised earlier by hon. Members.
Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and we must not replace one generation addicted to nicotine with another. Giving up nicotine is very difficult, because the body has to get used to functioning without it. Withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Evidence also suggests that the brain in adolescence is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people.
Under current legislation, there are no mandatory age restrictions on other consumer nicotine products. Although data suggests that the use of other nicotine products is low overall, there is a growing trend of use, particularly among adolescent boys, and there are indications that industry is beginning to encourage the uptake of other nicotine products. As we work to tackle youth vaping, it is important that there are not loopholes that can be exploited to put children at risk of nicotine addiction through the use of other nicotine products. That is why we are including powers to extend age of sale, proxy purchasing and age verification requirements to other nicotine products.
Clauses 10 and 43 are an important part of our work in ensuring that the collective package of measures in the Bill succeeds in protecting children from potential health harms. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
We support clause 10 as a tidying provision that ensures that the additional restrictions on the sale and free distribution of vaping products to under-18s can be extended to other nicotine products in England that have the potential to cause similar harms. It provides that the measures in clauses 7 to 9 can be extended to emerging products such as nicotine pouches, and clause 43 makes similar provisions for Scotland.
It is clearly not right that addictive nicotine products can be sold and freely distributed to children. Awareness of the products is growing, and legislation needs to keep up. According to research by Action on Smoking and Health, awareness and usage of nicotine pouches is higher among younger adults, and just over 5% of 18 to 24-year-olds have tried one. As with vapes, the marketing of nicotine pouches is likely to be attractive to children and young people, with similar branding to sweets and soft drinks. At present, a loophole means that it is not illegal to sell them to children, so I support the measures to close it.
Will the Minister set out her intentions with regard to the use of the new powers, and what conversations she has had with devolved nations on the issue? Will she also explain the Government’s view on the potential harms from the use of nicotine pouches? Does she believe that these products could have value as a stop-smoking aid, like vaping? What merit does she see in including the products in regulations similar to the tobacco-related products regulations for vapes? If she intends to introduce regulations on nicotine pouches, can she set out her intended timescale for that?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I support clause 10. We heard compelling evidence from Professor Gilmore last week about the tactics the industry uses to try to get young people addicted to nicotine, so that it can continue to profit from their buying the products for the rest of their lives. We also heard from Professor Gilmore about emerging evidence showing that exposure to nicotine at a young age, particularly as a teenager, can rewire the brain, making it more difficult to quit. I therefore welcome the powers in clause 10 that allow the Government to be flexible and respond to changing techniques in the market in order to stop children becoming addicted to nicotine, but why do we not just make it illegal to sell nicotine of any kind to children?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate being called to speak to clause 10, which is a very important part of the Bill. As we have heard many times already, the industry will look at every possible mechanism to try to bring about a new generation of people who are addicted to nicotine and make it harder for them to quit. That goes not just for people under 18 but for those in later adolescence and adulthood.
My concern is with products already on the market that are being taken up quite readily. Next week, the Health and Social Care Committee will look at the public health measures being taken in Sweden. We will see how nicotine pouches—snus, as they are referred to there—are being used as an alternative to smoking, really quite extensively.
Dr Johnson
Does the hon. Lady agree that nicotine pouches are starting to be marketed to young people in a similar way to vapes, with an increasing amount of flavours, a relatively inexpensive price per unit and horrifyingly high levels of nicotine?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, which is certainly where I want to go with my speech. She is right: the industry will look at every single option to reformulate its products, including introducing nicotine pouches disguised with various flavours and colours—you name it, they will do it—to induce young people to engage with them. If we do not get ahead of the curve, the industry will be right there—I guarantee it.
We need to wise up to the tactics the industry has deployed over decades and recognise that, whether with pouches or something else further down the line, it is again on the move to sell its products in a reformulated way. I urge the Minister to look at whether this should be covered by secondary legislation—I know she is concerned about the amount of secondary legislation that will come through from the Bill—or in the Bill as vaping is.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept the counter-argument that putting things in the Bill means that we have to change primary legislation, but that by doing things via regulations, the Government can make changes in a speedy fashion and combat big tobacco’s fleetness of foot in bringing terribly addictive new products to the market?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that, and I agree that we want to be able to adapt as soon as the market does, but right now the industry is promoting nicotine pouches and we must ensure that we take the earliest opportunity to bring them into the scope of legislation, so that the industry does not just think, “Well, we’ve got six months now to promote our product.” Given the way the industry is behaving, this is a bit like a game of cat and mouse, and we need to do whatever we can to ensure that we are ahead of the curve, whether that is through primary or secondary legislation.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the regulations are brought forward expeditiously and that the first set—we may need further sets; I appreciate what the hon. Member for Harrow East says—is introduced in the shortest time possible. Can she tell the Committee what the timescale will be for that, so that we know how quickly these other products will be brought within the scope of the Bill, ensuring that young people are protected?
Dr Johnson
I agree with the hon. Lady and with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Clause 10 applies to clauses 7, 8 and 9, giving the Government flexibility on all three. As the hon. Lady said, it is great to have the flexibility to bring in regulations to amend clauses 8 and 9, but on clause 7, can she think of any good reason why we would want to be able to sell nicotine products to under-18s?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Lady is following up on a theme that I probed at earlier stages of the Bill, notably on Second Reading. I believe that we need to look at stringent measures, so that people do not have their choices restricted by the addiction that they adopt. It is really important that young people today, or anyone else who engages with these products, do not get addicted at an early stage. We have to look at the issue of the impact of addiction in that wider realm, as we are doing on the Health and Social Care Committee, which is looking at products that are addictive and harmful to health in connection with the public health measures that we are scrutinising.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham makes an important point, and at a later stage of the legislative process I hope to examine how we address the drug nicotine and its harmful impacts on young people and more widely. Addiction has been utilised by people who exploit the lives of others for their own profit, and we need to ensure that they do not get the opportunity again with children, young people or adults. They plague those who live in the greatest deprivation in our country, driving them to more harmful addiction. I therefore welcome the legislation, but I believe that we can go further. Given the industry’s activities right at this moment in trying to find new ways around legislation before it is even on the statute book, the Committee needs to be wise about ensuring that it does not get that opportunity.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Everything that the hon. Member for York Central just said is worth reflecting on. Clause 43 applies to Scotland, and we are also talking about clause 10.
I spent a little time looking at nicotine pouches, which suddenly seem to be everywhere—or perhaps it is just that I am finding them advertised to me. I am definitely not the right person to advertise them to, but whenever I go on to social media, I inexplicably find them appearing before my eyes. There are a whole lot of questions around that. I will not be taking them, so that is fine, but other people will. We have heard about the uptake among young men in particular, which is concerning, because we heard some powerful evidence from health experts about the real harms that can be caused and the addiction that will follow people throughout their lives.
All the time, industry is finding new ways to hook young people. Some of the websites that I have looked at suggest that the pouches are a way to “avoid the health risk”. That is obviously not true—it is patent nonsense, actually. They also suggest that, for a sportsperson, “according to some reports”—that is me quoting again—there are “performance” benefits. Again, that is patent nonsense. It is obviously absolute rubbish, but I think it speaks to the narrative that surrounds pouches, as if they are somehow okay—a good thing—and they are not going to cause the harms that other nicotine-based products do. But of course these things will cause harm, and the addiction risk and health challenges are still there, too. The social normality, acceptability and prevalence of these things is deeply depressing. Their use by sportspeople in particular puts them across with some kind of veneer of being okay. They are not okay; they are deeply damaging to health.
Unsurprisingly, I am always keen to hear from the Minister about advertising and football strips, but to take that a step further, because we are talking about the same sports-based area, will she say how we can use legislation to keep ahead of companies that are so fleet of foot in hooking into things that people are interested in to promote these products directly or, more concerningly, indirectly?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I wholeheartedly endorse almost everything I have heard. I share hon. Members’ concerns and applaud them for their commitment to solving the issue of nicotine pouches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East rightly pointed out, should the industry find a way around something in the Bill, we would have to legislate again with primary legislation. The right thing to do, therefore, is to take powers to make secondary legislation that gets on top of the issue and future-proofs us, so that right across the United Kingdom we can tackle this appalling scourge: the tobacco industry’s determination to get our children addicted.
Extraordinarily, the tobacco industry dominates the UK nicotine pouches market, and it claims to self-regulate—that is, it claims not to sell to under-18s. That is absolutely extraordinary. A recent study suggests that although nicotine pouch use is low among adults, with roughly one in 400 adults in Great Britain using them, nicotine pouches are increasingly popular with younger, largely male audiences. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has identified gaps in research and flagged that the long-term health harms are not known, but use by non-smokers is likely to be associated with some adverse health effects due to the nicotine.
We all know that other nicotine products need to be clamped down on. We will not need to consult on age of sale restrictions on nicotine products; we will be able to use regulations, hopefully in this Parliament, with implementation from 2025. It is certainly our plan to consult on all of this regulation to get ahead of nicotine pouches and other nicotine products with a view to implementing the regulations in 2025.
Rachael Maskell
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that the strength of the nicotine in these products is excessively high—much higher than in other products—and so they rapidly bring about addiction. When the Government brought forward measures to try to educate the country about alcohol use, they did a comparison. Perhaps it would be helpful to do a comparison about the amount of nicotine that individuals are taking through a nicotine pouch, because the public would be alarmed to know that we are talking about their taking multiple factors of nicotine into their bodies.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; they vary from 2 mg to 150 mg per pouch. I imagine that that variation would make it hard to provide a complete comparison, but she is quite right that education will be a big part of the implementation.
Dr Johnson
I think that most parents in my constituency would be horrified to think that nicotine pouches are available for sale to children. I appreciate that the Bill takes the power to ban nicotine products other than vaping products at a later date, but I would grateful if the Minister could explain why we should not ban the sale of nicotine to under-18s full stop. I do not understand why and in what circumstances anyone would ever wish under-18s to have nicotine sold to them.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill takes powers to bring forward the age of sale restriction, and that in itself will not require further consultation. It is my expectation that, if possible, that will be brought forward in this Parliament. However, as has been explained, if we put something in the Bill, the industry will get around it by saying, for example, “This doesn’t contain nicotine”—except it does, as we have already seen.
The other thing I want to raise with hon. Members is that clauses 61 to 63, which will grant the ability to restrict flavours, packaging and location in store, will also apply to nicotine products. Those measures are clearly designed to reduce their attractiveness to children.
Rachael Maskell
In response to my questions and accepting the clause as it is written, can the Minister give the Committee an assurance about when the regulations will be brought forward to ensure that products such as nicotine pouches will come within scope of the Bill?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
All I can say to the hon. Lady is that she has heard me, and I am determined to bring that forward as soon as possible. There are good reasons for not putting the provision on the face of the Bill, which are to do with future-proofing. I can only give her my absolute assurance that, as soon as humanly possible, I will bring the regulations forward for consultation where necessary and for implementation where not.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but I am still a bit confused. I can see the point she makes about the industry and the need to remain flexible; that is really important and why we support clause 10 —particularly in relation to sections 8 and 9, which are about the purchase of products on behalf of children. I welcome the fact that later in the Bill we will see restrictions on the appeal of the packaging of vaping and tobacco products, which will help to make them less attractive to children.
However, I still do not understand why any product containing nicotine would need to be available to children and why that would not be on the face of the Bill. If we were to specify nicotine pouches in the Bill, I see that that could be got around by calling them “nicotine gum” or something else, but if it said, “Nicotine—full stop—cannot be sold to under-18s,” that would be difficult to work around, because no nicotine product could be sold to under-18s. I expect that if I did a survey of parents in my constituency, most would presume that that was already the law.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will take away and reflect on. We have obviously already aired the discussion about the benefit of taking powers as opposed to putting something in primary legislation, but she makes a good point and I will come back to her.
Bob Blackman
One of the challenges we are talking about is not only nicotine itself—we had medical evidence last week to suggest the damage it does to the body, let alone its delivery mechanisms—but the mixture of different routes by which it gets into the body. At the moment, evidence is emerging about the damage from the use of different accelerants to get nicotine into the body. Will the Minister consider what may need to be done about those particular types of chemicals and other methods that may need regulation to outlaw them, because of the damage that they do particularly to children and to all other vapers?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. We have heard about some of the heavy metals and other carcinogens in vapes. The Bill is so comprehensive in banning things such as cigarette papers, herbal cigarettes and so on precisely because of other things that people put into their lungs. As the chief medical officer for England said, it is fine to drink a glass of water but have you ever tried inhaling one? It is not such a pleasant experience. He made the point that although it might be perfectly safe to eat a non-toxic flavour, it could be very different to inhale it.
As we heard last week, the fact of the matter is that there simply is not yet the evidence to say what some of these products do to human beings when inhaled. It is absolutely right that we protect children from those effects, hence this Bill. I hope that one of the outcomes of this legislation will be that we get far more evidence via independent research into the potential harms of first-hand vaping and other consumption of nicotine as well as second-hand consumption, which I know a number of hon. Members are interested in. I am sure we will come back to that in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Displays of vaping and nicotine products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 45 stand part.
Clause 54 stand part.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 11 provides a regulation-making power to allow the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales to introduce future restrictions or requirements on the display of vaping and nicotine products, and their packaging and pricing where they are offered for sale. Clause 45 provides the same regulation-making power to Scottish Ministers, and clause 54 provides the power to Northern Ireland.
At this point, I would like to reiterate our plans for future vaping regulations, including on vape displays. I have made a commitment to consult on future regulations. Any regulations made will be accompanied by clear impact assessments. We will introduce new regulations as soon as possible following the passage of the Bill.
We simply cannot replace one generation addicted to nicotine with another, and we know that giving up nicotine is so difficult because the body must get used to functioning without it. Withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Despite this very clear health advice, there has been a significant and alarming rise in the number of children vaping in this country. Data shows that the number of young people vaping has tripled in just the last three years, and now one in five children has used a vape. That is alarming and unacceptable.
Evidence shows us that vapes are currently far too easily accessible to children within shops. Vapes are sometimes displayed alongside sweets and confectionery in retail environments, and often promoted in shopfront windows. These products are too easily seen and too readily available to children, and we have a duty to protect our children from harm. These clauses therefore provide regulation-making powers for new restrictions on where and how vapes and nicotine products can be displayed within a retail setting, and ensure that we are aligned right across the United Kingdom. The display restrictions will include both packaging and pricing. Future regulations on point-of-sale displays will help to reduce the ease of access to vapes to children, and the degree to which vapes can be targeted at children. These are important clauses to help us tackle youth vaping and to protect children from addiction and future health harms.
Preet Kaur Gill
We welcome the inclusion of these powers to regulate the display of nicotine and vaping products in retail settings. All of us have seen what has been happening in some shops: as the Minister said, colourful products that look like confectionery kept next to the pick ’n’ mix at pocket money prices. I appreciate that some in the sector have concerns that regulations on point-of-sale displays need to be balanced in respect of their impact on retailers, given existing restrictions on products like tobacco and some of the associated costs. In my view, however, there is no argument against the inclusion of the powers themselves.
I heard from a retail worker at a major supermarket chain that they are paid by the vaping companies to put displays of vapes in prominent locations in their stores. These are often far away from the tills, where there is little to no oversight by staff. I was told that where children once shoplifted sweets, they are now going straight for these products. One worries that the vape companies are almost happy to lose them, if they can get a new customer addicted who they know will come back for more.
None the less, I want to highlight that there appears to be broad support for some restrictions on the display of vapes among retailers. I note that in the Action on Smoking and Health survey of retailers in England and Wales, 80% of tobacco retailers supported prohibiting advertising and promotion of vapes or vaping products in store, and requiring them to be put behind the counter; only 12% were opposed. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined whether it is her firm view—she has alluded to it—that vapes should be kept behind the counter, or whether display should be prohibited entirely, which seems to be what the Government have looked at in their impact assessment. Alternatively, does she feel that further consultation is necessary?
I would also like to raise other questions about the potential for such regulations to be undermined. Clause 34 of the Bill provides an interpretation of terms used in part 1 of the Bill, but it does not define “retailer”. I therefore wonder whether other forms of display for sale would be caught under the powers as drafted here. I am thinking of vape vending machines, which are not in widespread use now but could be in the future.
Have her officials looked at that issue? Given the introduction of some vending machines with automated age verification features, has the Minister considered prohibiting vape vending machines, as has happened in Scotland? We can easily see how this situation could undermine the consistency of regulations on displays.
Rachael Maskell
If I might be so bold, I think the Minister is making life slightly complicated for herself. We know the impact that taking smoking products out of the line of sight of people who go into shops or supermarkets has had. Putting them in closed cabinets has very much had the effect that we would want. People do not see the products, but they have to request them; they are not on display for people to just glance an eye over. They are simply not there in the line of sight.
If the same legislation applied to all vaping and nicotine products, that would make things simpler for shopkeepers and supermarkets. They already have the shelving and the shutters; it is not as if they would have to make a financial investment in new shelving. They would not have to do anything different—just pick up the vapes and put them into a contained, enclosed space. I do not see any reason why that could not be in primary legislation, because it would be so simple, and I believe the expectation of the public is already there.
I walked down a street in York just the other day, and almost every shop had their little vape display. Putting them behind the counter, behind screens, behind shutters, would be the simplest method of dealing with that. We know it is effective for smoking. There is no reason why tobacco products should be dealt with at a different standard than vaping products when people go to purchase them, and we would get the effect of “out of sight, out of mind”. We know how much the industry spends on packaging to draw the eye to products, and how powerful that is. Putting them out of sight would have the required effect of reducing people’s thinking about those products.
Simplifying and bringing the legislation into line, for shopkeepers, the public and for us as legislators would meet the public expectation that this is what will happen. I do not think we need separate legislation to deal with vapes one way and smoking products another. Let us just pool it together, make it simple and say that this is about protecting the public. I do not think anyone will bat an eyelid.
Dr Johnson
I rise in support of clause 11 on restricting the display of vaping and nicotine products. I have been horrified to see that after the Government, with good intentions, made it difficult for children to see sweets at the counter, to reduce pester power and help protect them from obesity, the sweets were in many cases replaced by vapes. The Government are doing exactly the right thing in taking the powers to look at displays. As has been mentioned, the ability and flexibility of doing so through regulations means that we can move swiftly when the industry seeks to get round the latest rules. I think that is great.
I have two examples for the Minister. Would they be covered by paragraph (1)(c)? The first is a mini-mart in Grantham. The entire shop window is covered in pictures of things such as Kinder chocolate, Haribos, fruit and very large-size vape devices in bright colours. I was in WH Smith in Nottingham last weekend; this is a shop that sells children’s books, children’s toys, sweets and children’s stationery, yet at the till there is a very large video display of vape adverts immediately behind the shopkeeper’s head. Will these two types of advertising and display be covered by the regulations?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Again, I appreciate the sentiments expressed and associate myself with all of them. The hon. Member for York Central requested that we put in primary legislation that vapes must be behind the counter. It is clear from the impact assessment and the consultation that that is the intention. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham points out, the reason for taking the powers is that doing so allows us to stay ahead of the next place they might be sold, for instance outside the shop, on a bus or outside a school—we can imagine all sorts of other ideas. It is important to have the regulations to get ahead of other ideas, rather than saying, “They shall be behind the counter.” That is why we are taking regulatory powers right across the Bill, so that answer holds for all the areas in which we are taking powers: we are taking them to stay ahead of an industry that has shown itself to be very imaginative and brutal in its determination to addict children. We need to stay one step ahead, and that is the plan.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Something has occurred to me rather later than sooner, as things often do. Vape shops are prolific in our town centres. Can anything be done to limit young people’s access to those shops, for instance a minimum age of entry, so that no one under 18 should be on the premises? I do not think that we have thought about that hitherto in our discussions.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I will take it away and look at it. The immediate thing that springs to mind is that if someone is out with their children, it is difficult for them to say, “You stand out there; I am going in.” That could give parents concern. I take the point that, in a vape shop, someone cannot say, “Go and look at the toys while I choose my vapes,” but I can imagine all sorts of objections from a practical point of view. However, I will take the suggestion away and reflect on it.
Mary Glindon
Is it not the case that children are not allowed in bookies and betting shops? That is perhaps a similar situation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As I say, I accept the hon. Lady’s point and will reflect on it.
The broader point is that there is obviously a balance here. We want to exclude vapes from children, but we do not want to exclude vapes from adults who want to quit smoking, because that is the real prize that we are seeking to hang on to. The more difficult we make it for adults to access vapes as a quit aid, the more we are discouraging adults who, we have all agreed—violently—we want to stop smoking. That is the killer.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Minister is making an extremely important point: we have to do everything in a proportionate manner. Although we need to protect children, and do not want children—I have children of my own—to take up vaping in childhood or have access to vapes, vaping can be a harm-reduction approach for adults. Putting vapes behind the counter, like tobacco, might go against some of the evidence we heard about the harm of vaping being much less than that of smoking itself. It could perhaps give the wrong impression to the public: that vaping is not a harm-reduction tool, that it is not going to be useful to them, and that it is in the same category as smoking itself.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend highlights exactly the challenge, which is the balance between helping adults to stop smoking, where turning to vapes can be the most successful tool in the toolkit, and preventing children from ever taking up and becoming addicted to nicotine.
Dr Johnson
I have a question, but I appreciate that the Minister may not know the answer. Adults who wish to stop smoking have many smoking services that they can go to for advice, such as their GP or pharmacist. Other mechanisms of giving up smoking, such as Nicorette gum and nicotine patches, are available, but they are nowhere near as widely advertised as vapes. Does the Minister think that smokers are unaware of them?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
That is a very tricky question to answer. I certainly think that stop-smoking services are fully aware of all the different alternatives that an individual can take up. There is of course the question raised in previous discussions, which nobody has raised today, about whether there should be a prescription-only vape. Many people would say, “No, I want the convenience of buying a vape. I don’t want to have to go and get a prescription, argue why I need it, and so on. I’d rather just buy one.” There is a genuine issue of convenience and accessibility, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is vital that stop-smoking services set out the whole array of different choices to help adult smokers to quit, and that will include vapes. The evidence is that vapes are particularly successful in helping adults to quit smoking.
Dr Johnson
My point was about that balance between protecting children and making adult smokers aware that they can use vapes to quit or to change their habit to one that may be safer for them. There seems to be a reluctance to apply stringent methods that would protect children in order to protect adults. My point on advertising was really about whether adults are any less aware of gums and patches because they are not as floridly advertised as vapes. Do we really need to be as sensitive in protecting adults, or should we prioritise the protection of our children?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Intellectually and morally, I completely agree that we need to protect children, and that is the priority. I think the Bill will do exactly that. We are taking the powers to restrict the flavours, the location and the accessibility, and we are massively ramping up enforcement. All of the measures that we are taking are exactly designed to strike the right balance between helping adults to quit smoking and protecting children.
I want to address one other point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston on vending machines, and I think the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire also raised it. There will be powers taken in the Bill to limit the use of vending machines for vapes. At the moment, the evidence is that it is not a real problem; vapes do not tend to be sold in vending machines. We need to take the powers, as I have already said, so that we can stay ahead of whatever approach is taken next by the tobacco industry.
Dr Johnson
May I push on that point? Does that mean that the Government will accept new clause 16—the vending machine clause?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
We are not at that point yet. We will come to those amendments and new clauses as and when.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Restricted premises orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders, or RPOs. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales, and district councils in Northern Ireland, can deploy when a retailer is found to persistently breach tobacco and vape age of sale restrictions.
Clauses 12 to 14 are based on and replace existing legislation in England and Wales. Clause 12 provides that a persistent offender can be issued with a restricted premises order, which could prohibit the sale of products— such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and any nicotine products —on premises for up to 12 months. This is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has sold tobacco or vape products to someone under-age at least twice within the previous two years.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for explaining the nature of these various different measures. I think retailers will have a concern about, for example, where a manager or an errant individual breaches these rules and is therefore subject to action, what actions the retailer can then take to alleviate the challenge afterwards. For example, if the person is dismissed or is told they are no longer welcome on the premises, will that be sufficient, or will it have to be a case of serving a time before such premises can be brought back into action? Obviously, retailers will want to know what they must do to comply with not only the letter but the spirit of the law.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. It also justifies why this is particularly complicated to explain, let alone to take in. That is one of the reasons why there is a long lead-in period for that new regulation. There will be training for retail. We have discussed this with various industry bodies, and they support it and consider that there is enough time for them to get up to speed. Essentially, that strays into the issue of the quantum of fines. The idea is that it is effectively an on-the-spot fine; it is really, “Two strikes and you’re out.” If someone offends twice, they will end up with a restricted premises order, and if they offend again, they will get an unlimited fine. It is an appropriate escalation. At the starting point, there are a number of other fines that are of a similar quantum, where someone could potentially argue, “Well, I did not realise. I am new; I did not get the training; I was not here that day,” and then it is not such a painful fine. They would certainly learn their lesson, however, and after two offences it escalates very significantly.
Clause 56 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 and introduces the power for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to amend the definition of a tobacco, nicotine or non-nicotine vape offence for which a restricted premises order can be issued. That is the same provision made for England and Wales in clause 15. Clauses 15, in England and Wales, and 56, in Northern Ireland, are important to maintain the longevity of the legislation. They will ensure that enforcement action remains up to date to reflect any relevant new tobacco or vape products that come on to the market in future. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
We support the introduction of restricted premises orders for breach of age of sale laws on nicotine and vaping products in the same way that they already exist for tobacco. A repeat offender should know that there are serious consequences for breaching age of sale legislation, so I strongly support the principle of providing a strong deterrent to any retailers that would break the law. The threat of enforcement action cannot be seen as the cost of doing business.
I have a few questions about how the orders work in practice. The Bill introduces a requirement for trading standards authorities to consider whether to conduct a programme of enforcement at least once a year. That is not a strong requirement. There is nothing to say that local teams must conduct any enforcement action within a two-year period on the matter, even if they receive complaints, and many trading standards teams are woefully under-resourced. Therefore, the requirement for the powers to be used for “persistent” offences, meaning at least two breaches within a two-year period, suggests to me that the orders will be very seldom used.
That is not to mention the question of how the orders would be enforced once granted by a magistrates court, or indeed the backlogs before that. Can the Minister say how many times restricted premises orders have been used in relation to tobacco in recent years, or even in the last decade? We heard from trading standards at the evidence sessions that boots are needed on the ground to make this work. My understanding is that of the money that the Government have announced for enforcement, only £10 million will go to trading standards. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct?
At the same time, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute is warning that its profession is in jeopardy because of a lack of investment. Its funding has been cut by 50% over the past decade, and it estimates that around the UK as much as half the workforce is set to retire over the next decade. Has the Minister heard any of those concerns? What conversations has she had with colleagues and other Departments about staff retention and investment?
I am foregrounding one of my amendments to a later clause, but I am of the view that the proposed fixed penalty notice powers will be a more effective mechanism to enforce compliance on age of sale, particularly given the clause on use of proceeds, if we do not have strong reassurances that trading standards will get the necessary resources from central Government.
We strongly welcome any measure that will aid authorities in cracking down on the sale of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products to children. However, I urge the Minister to look again at whether the new regulations will be coupled with the enforcement action needed on the ground. Without it, they will not achieve what we need them to, and more young people will fall prey to addiction.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am pleased that the hon. Lady supports the clauses. They are absolutely vital to ensure that we have the proper enforcement powers. She asked about the investment in enforcement. I can tell her that we are investing over £30 million of new funding a year into enforcement agencies, including trading standards, HMRC and Border Force. That increased investment will boost enforcement surrounding the sale of illicit tobacco and illicit vapes and help local trading standards with enforcement on underage sales of tobacco and vaping products at a local level. There will also be £100 million of funding over five years to support HMRC and Border Force’s new illicit tobacco strategy, which will seek to tackle the illicit trade and create a new illicit tobacco taskforce. Various measures are under way, including training, but enforcement will be absolutely key.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Restricted sale orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 16 and 17 are based on and replace existing legislation for England and Wales. They relate to restricted sale orders, which is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate.
Clause 16 provides that a persistent offender can be issued with a restricted sale order, which is similar to a restricted premises order but puts a ban on an individual from selling tobacco or vape products rather than a business. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool for enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders as they apply to a specific person, regardless of their place of employment.
Clause 17 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the order. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The penalty for breaching a restricted sale order is an unlimited fine, which will again be a good deterrent. I commend clauses 16 and 17 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
Once again, we support these clauses, which will provide an effective deterrent to those who would sell addictive products to children and ensure that repeat offenders have that freedom taken away. I echo my comments on restricted premises orders: the success of the policy will depend on effective enforcement. May I ask the Minister why the Government have not provided similar powers to add to the list of relevant offences for which a restricted sale order can be issued, as they have with a restricted premises order? What is the rationale there?
Likewise, I am interested in whether the Minister has data on how many of those orders have been issued in relation to tobacco in recent years. I think she has clarified that the orders are designed to stop repeat offenders being able to simply move around, but can she assure us that local trading standards authorities are sufficiently joined up, and that someone moving between different shops in other local authorities in a retail chain could be picked up?
Once again, we support the principle of the clauses, which brings the consequences of breaching age of sale law for vaping and nicotine products into line with the existing laws for tobacco, but I have some concerns about how it will work in practice. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for her points, which were all very well made. If I may, I will write to her about her question of how many times such orders have been used in the past. I will reflect on what she says about the ability to enforce. I have set out the amount of new funds going to enforcement and the plans for further education and training, but I will certainly reflect on her point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Liability of others for certain offences committed by bodies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The clause makes a person potentially liable for an offence committed by a body, when that offence has been committed with their consent, connivance or neglect. That means that a person would be liable in addition to the body, such as the company or partnership, that they are working for. It helps the overall purpose of the Bill by supporting local authority trading standards in enforcing tobacco and vape age of sale regulations, as they can punish both individuals and businesses when conducting their enforcement activity. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
As with previous clauses, we support clause 18. It would not be right if someone working in a local shop could receive orders from a higher authority in their organisation to breach the regulations, but only that person or premises could be proceeded against, not the company or the director, manager or senior person who may ultimately be responsible.
There are already a number of situations in our law where, if an offence is committed by a company and it is proven to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager or senior person, that person is also guilty of the offence. I am satisfied that the clause is an appropriate application of that mechanism, as it refers to the persistent breach of regulations, and therefore would indicate a systemic problem. We support its inclusion in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 19, 20 and 21 relate to the enforcement requirements of local weights and measures authorities in England and Wales. Clause 19 places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities. For England and Wales,
“local weights and measures authorities”
means local authority trading standards.
The clause provides local authority trading standards with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity. The investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises. The existing regulatory regime for tobacco enforcement provides for local authority trading standards to use the same investigatory powers, which are considered to be effective, and thus clause 19 provides continuity with the current enforcement approach, ensuring enforcement of this new legislation at the local level.
Clause 20 provides a requirement for local authority trading standards in England to consider yearly a programme of enforcement, and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement, for offences under part 1 of the Bill. A programme of enforcement includes at least one of the following: investigations of complaints regarding alleged offences, prosecutions in respect of such offences, and/or other measures intended to reduce the incidence of such offences. The clause is important to the Bill, as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider as appropriate to enforce the tobacco and vapes regulations.
Clause 21 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement in Wales as is made for England under clause 20. I commend clauses 19, 20, and 21 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
Trading standards officers are experts in this area. They know what they are looking for in retail settings, they are experts in the legislation they have to enforce, and they do an important job in difficult circumstances. As we heard in evidence, trading standards officers enforce dozens of regulations, but in many local authorities there are barely one or two officers to do the job. As we consider the new regulations that we give to them to enforce, it is important that we make sure they get the support they need to do the job.
As I mentioned, I have some concerns about clause 20, in that it provides a relatively weak basis on which to compel a programme of enforcement to be carried out. However, I am glad it at least sets out something of the Minister’s expectations, and we acknowledge that different local authorities face different local challenges. We do not want to be overly prescriptive in what we set in law. The issue therefore comes down to resources, so can the Minister tell us what has been the result of Operation Joseph and whether it will be continuing? I note that it received £3 million in funding last year, but the timeframe in which that was scheduled to be delivered was unclear. Can the Minister clear that up?
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute estimates that one in three vapes on British shelves may be illicit, which suggests that local authorities are struggling to fully get to grips with existing enforcement priorities, as we add new ones. What assessment have the Government made of authorities’ capacity to absorb these new responsibilities with the resources allocated?
Bob Blackman
I want to put one issue to the Minister before she sums up these clauses. Obviously, the overwhelming number of retailers will wish to conform to the rules and regulations under which they exist. On re-reading the Bill, I notice that it does not cover the contents of products. For example, we have cited the issue of so-called nicotine-free products that contain nicotine and, indeed, many other products that may have different amounts of nicotine from what is stated. We hear anecdotally of some suppliers wanting to reduce the amount of nicotine in vapes to get people to buy more of them because the nicotine hit is insufficient. Under these powers, will trading standards officers have the opportunity to look at those products and take action against retailers who are clearly selling products whose contents clearly do not accord with what should be in them?
Rachael Maskell
I want to pick up on this point as well because it is incredibly important, and we cannot put the responsibilities on to trading standards if they do not have the tools to do the job. Clearly, this is a new field and, as we have discussed throughout the Bill, new products will come out and be marketed if we do not get ahead of the curve. It is therefore important that we ensure that new testing kits are made available and that we look at how they can be brought into play.
We heard strong evidence last week about the benefits of introducing a track and trace system, which would simplify the work of trading standards. If a product has not been through that process, and there is therefore not an authoritative basis on which to say that it can be sold, it would clearly be an illicit product. If a proper track and trace process was put in place, that could aid the work of trading standards, and addressing the real challenges we are trying to deal with through these clauses would not require such extensive resourcing.
Will the Minister therefore comment on her appetite for bringing in a track and trace system for vaping and other nicotine products to get ahead of the curve? That would ensure that the illicit trade is suppressed and does not rear its ugly head and that it is as easy as possible for trading standards to uphold every part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This is obviously an incredibly important area of enforcement, and successful enforcement is integral to the success of this policy.
To the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston about Operation Joseph, in the year before the operation—2022-23—2.1 million illicit vapes were seized by trading standards across England. In the same year, 1,199 test purchases were carried out by trading standards in England, with 27.3% resulting in an illegal sale. Those are the numbers. As the hon. Lady says, Operation Joseph has had £3 million of investment over two years, led by National Trading Standards. It conducts a range of illicit vape enforcement activities, including data collection and analysis of the scale of illegal products and under-age sales; market surveillance; under-age sales testing; court enforcement action; and upskilling of trading standards staff. A further operation—Operation CeCe —was established in January 2021 as a joint venture between National Trading Standards and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle illicit tobacco sales.
So those individual measures are in place. As hon. Members will know, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency looks at the product notifications for legal products, which have to meet the compliance standards of the MHRA. It is then for trading standards to enforce, and they have had a significant increase in resources to tackle enforcement, as I have set out. I am obviously happy to write to Members with more detail should they wish.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 22 and 23 relate to powers for Ministers to take over enforcement in England and Wales. Clause 22 provides a power for the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care or Welsh Ministers to carry out the enforcement of a particular case, or a particular type of case, instead of local authority trading standards.
Trading standards operate in all local authorities, and it is standard practice that they undertake required local enforcement action, as will be the case for offences under part 1 of the Bill. However, a situation could arise where they are unable or unwilling to undertake enforcement in a particular case. For example, a tobacco company could develop a new tobacco product that it argues is outside the scope of enforcement, which could result in trading standards being hesitant about pursuing action—as we have discussed, tobacco companies are nothing if not inventive in their determination.
Clause 22 replaces, and is based on, existing legislation. It allows for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care or Welsh Ministers to take over enforcement action, should that be deemed necessary, and it ensures consistent, strong and effective enforcement of the tobacco and vape measures in the Bill.
Clause 23 provides a power for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care or Welsh Ministers to take over from trading standards the conduct of any legal proceedings relating to an offence under part 1 of the Bill. In a similar manner to clause 22, this clause replaces, and is based on, existing legislation. It allows the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care or Welsh Ministers to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings, should that be deemed necessary, and it ensures consistent, strong and effective enforcement of the provisions in part 1 of the Bill. I therefore commend clauses 22 and 23 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
Let me start by saying that I support these two clauses being added to the Bill, providing the Secretary of State with powers to take over enforcement functions from local authorities or to take legal proceedings in court instead of a local enforcement authority.
The rationale for these additions is, first, to ensure that where local authorities are unwilling or unable to take enforcement action, the Government themselves can intervene to speed that work up and get it done. That can only be a useful backstop, although it does underline the important points that I and other colleagues have raised about local authorities having appropriate resources to discharge their responsibilities in the first instance. Secondly, as we heard in evidence, there is the matter of illicit tobacco, and often vapes too, being linked to organised crime. Such criminal networks often span large areas, crossing local authority lines, and in theory it could be useful for national Government to intervene in large cases that extend beyond the jurisdiction of a single local authority.
We hope that the work of trading standards officers is sufficiently joined up with the work of officers in other local authorities and the work of national agencies such as the MHRA and Border Force, but the point remains that national authorities should be able to step in if required. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could for the record expand on how she would expect to utilise the powers in clause 22 and in what scenario she would consider that necessary. Could she also confirm whether she plans to devote additional resources to national trading standards as part of her plans to deal with the rapid growth of the illicit market in vapes in recent years, including unsafe products with illegal nicotine strengths and so on?
Given the widespread appearance of some illicit products on the shelves of shops and the co-ordination work that will need to be undertaken with the likes of Border Force to stop such illicit products getting into the country, in what scenario would the Minister consider it appropriate for the national authorities to lead on certain priorities instead of local teams? We know that local trading standards officers are often intelligence-led, whereas national authorities have greater resources at their disposal. How is that work co-ordinated, and can we do it better?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston for her comments and views. She asked a really important question: will we enforce at a national level? The answer is that, at the moment, we want to be able to enable that, should it prove necessary. She will be aware that, as I set out, we are expanding—by £30 million a year—the resourcing available to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trading standards and Border Force to clamp down and enforce. As that work progresses, we may well uncover organised crime, for example, or significant bad practice that, as she rightly pointed out, crosses local borders and where a national-level intervention would be more appropriate. I cannot tell her right now what the plan is, because it will emerge over time, but having those powers is essential.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Fixed penalty notices
Preet Kaur Gill
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 24, page 12, line 14, leave out “£100” and insert “£200”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 25 and 26 stand part.
Preet Kaur Gill
The amendment is very simple: it would amend clause 24, which introduces fixed penalty notices for retailers that breach age of sale, proxy purchasing and free distribution restrictions on tobacco, vapes and nicotine products, by doubling the fixed penalty notice from £100 to £200.
The need for the amendment is clear. In 2022-23, national trading standards identified that 20% of the 1,000 vape test purchases carried out with retailers resulted in an illegal sale. In 2019-20, 50% of councils that undertook test purchasing reported that cigarettes or tobacco products were sold to under-age people in at least one premises. Despite existing regulations, there is a big and widespread problem, which suggests that the current penalties and fines, which can end up as high as £2,500, are an insufficient deterrent. I strongly support giving trading standards officers the power to issue on-the-spot fines to retailers doing the wrong thing, but the current level of the fine is too low.
My amendment would increase fines to £200, precisely doubling the deterrent in the Bill. Under the Bill as drafted by the Government, offenders can be forced to pay only £50 if they pay off their fixed penalty notice within 14 days, and it is surely too easy for those breaching the law to factor that in as the cost of doing business. Stakeholders including the Association of Convenience Stores and the Local Government Association agree that £100 is too low and that £200 makes logical sense as the level at which to set fines, equalising it with the level for other, similar offences, such as that proposed in the draft regulations for the disposable vapes ban. In the Government’s consultation, £200 was also the most popular response—three times as many respondents supported £200 over £100.
The other reason why my amendment is important is that the penalties from fixed penalty notices can be retained by the local authority. I have raised my concerns, as others have, about the decline of local trading standards, and the amendment would increase the funds they have available to enforce other aspects of the Bill, including regulations yet to be made under it. All of that comes with a cost, and anything that we can do to give local authorities the tools they need to enforce the regulations, the better. I note that clause 26 would provide the power to amend the level of the fixed penalty notice by way of regulations, so the issue could be revisited if needed.
I urge other Committee members to support my amendment in order to strengthen enforcement and provide a proper deterrent to rogue retailers that choose to sell addictive and dangerous products to children.
Rachael Maskell
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. I completely agree that when we set these figures, we often forget that the economy has moved on so much, and that the rise in inflation has meant that so many things cost so much more. Just £100 is a very small amount to many shops, which take their cut from these products. It is therefore essential that we move into the realms of reality, not least because the consultation advised the Government that £200 would be an appropriate starting point and would have public support.
Clause 26 says that the figure can be amended by the Secretary of State, should they choose to do so. So the amendment would not place a limit in primary legislation, but it would make this a more realistic deterrent to ensure that shopkeepers abide by the law. It is also really important to have an incentive for them to ensure that they are fully up to speed with their obligations. This change would focus their minds as regulations are introduced, as the Minister alluded to, and ensure that they keep themselves up to date, because they know that the penalty makes it worth doing that. I therefore urge the Committee to adopt my hon. Friend’s amendment. It is a simple measure that would not cause the Minister any grief as the Bill passes through its later stages.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston for bringing this discussion to the Committee, and I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment. I completely understand why it is attractive to raise the fixed penalty notice and make it more material to the individual, but I urge hon. Members to take into account the fact that local trading standards take a proportionate approach to tobacco and vape enforcement. The Bill proposes fixed penalty notices of £100 to enable trading standards to take swifter action by issuing on-the-spot fines, rather than needing to go through lengthy court processes. Littering, parking or under-age alcohol sales attract on-the-spot fines. The proposal in the Bill is for £100, or £50 if it is paid within two weeks. That avoids people thinking, “I can’t pay this, so you’ll have to pursue me through the courts.” That creates an incentive for these issues never to come to court, and it can clog up court time and so on. I fully appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but this is about practicality.
I find it slightly odd that the hon. Lady says £100 is affordable but £200 is not. I would be shocked to get a £100 on-the-spot fine, and I am sure she would, too. Most retail workers would find a £100 fine to be quite devastating vis-à-vis their daily cost of living. I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but £100 is in line with the precedent set by penalties for comparable offences. The fixed penalty notice for under-age alcohol sales is £90. If the penalty were raised to £200, as the amendment suggests, trading standards could issue higher on-the-spot fines, but how many of us have that kind of money on us? It would push a person into severe difficulty. As we have discussed, there is a very swift escalation—it is a “two strikes and you are out” policy—and there is the ability to take the business to task, too, so I think the current penalty is actually quite stringent.
Dr Johnson
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think we must always consider the most stringent possible fine for selling these things to kids. Will she confirm that, in the event that someone is selling age-restricted tobacco and vaping products to children, the shop worker, who is unlikely to be on a particularly high income, could receive an on-the-spot £100 fine, which they would have to pay immediately; and that the shop premises can be taken to court, and if necessary, enforcement can result in the shop not being able to sell these products at all? In addition, under clause 1 an individual can be taken to court for selling these products and can get a level 4 fine. There is a whole range of options, from on-the-spot fines, which may be relatively low and can be used if the trading standards officer wants to quickly remind someone not to make such mistakes in future, to much more severe penalties for those who are more persistent or deliberate.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I will run through the levels of fines for the benefit of hon. Members.
Mary Glindon
Is not the whole point of having fines that they act as a deterrent? We do not want lots of people just paying £100 because it is manageable. The thought that they may have to find £200 on the spot could be more of a deterrent. The reason we have these fines in the first place is that they act as deterrents, is it not?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree; the hon. Lady makes a good point. What people would see as a deterrent is an open question. I would see a £100 fine as a deterrent; I do not have £100 in my purse, so I would have to go to the cash point. I would not be keen to do that, and Members of Parliament earn quite a bit more than most retail workers. That is the truth of it. I actually think that setting the fine in line with the £90 fine for the offence of selling alcohol to someone under age is quite a material deterrent.
Rachael Maskell
I think the Minister is making slightly the wrong comparison. A retail outlet will have a till, and that till will have money in it. Therefore, it will be the business, not the shop worker, paying the fine. She makes the point that for one person, £100 could be incredibly steep, but for someone working in a venue that sells products out of the scope of the legislation, paying £200 out of a till is not really out of the ordinary, and these businesses make extortionate profits out of these things. I wonder if she could address that point.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is an open question as to what the right level is, but it is for trading standards to decide whether the individual member of staff or the business pays the fine. So this is a very relevant point, but it is not just about taking the money out of the till. That is not necessarily the choice that trading standards would make; the fine may well be imposed on the individual.
Kirsten Oswald
I wonder whether looking at what an individual person may have in their purse is the right way to think about this. The Minister is right that I do not have £100 in my purse, but I am fortunate enough that I do have £100. It strikes me that in these situations, there would be a more modern way of paying the fine than expecting people to have it on their person at that moment. That puts a whole layer of obligation on them. I am slightly agnostic about what the level should be, but I wonder if we could look at what is reasonable rather than what people might have about their person.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Of course, most of us do not carry £100 in cash, because we do not need to these days. My point was more that if the fine is £200, an individual might say, “Well, you’ll have to take me to court over it.” That creates a huge administrative burden that will slow down justice.
I will turn to the other clauses, because I think that will help in this debate. Clauses 24 to 26 relate to fixed penalty notices in England and Wales. Clause 24 introduces fixed penalty notices for the under-age sale of tobacco and vaping products and for the free distribution of vaping products to under-18s in England and Wales. The current penalty regime requires trading standards to prosecute an individual or business, and they must be convicted in a magistrates court. The new fixed penalty notices will allow trading standards to take swifter action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers, instead of escalating to a court process. Fixed penalty notices are already in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. They are already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products. A strong approach to enforcement is vital to ensure the smoke-free generation policy, and that our approach to tackling youth vaping has real impact. Fixed penalty notices will complement the existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers, allowing them to take swifter action to fine those selling to anyone under the age of sale.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will make progress, if that is all right—I will give way before I finish. I just want to ensure that hon. Members are aware of the facts.
Clause 25 states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issued in relation to the offences in the Bill will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under the Bill. That means that if trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice, the local authority will retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That allows local authorities to cover the enforcement costs of issuing fixed penalty notices, and to reinvest any remaining funds in enforcement regimes.
Clause 26 provides the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Welsh Ministers with the power to change the amount of a fixed penalty notice and the percentage discount for early payment as set out in clause 24. The power provides flexibility for Ministers to adapt the amounts specified and will future-proof fixed penalty notices, ensuring that they remain an appropriate and proportionate enforcement tool to deter offenders.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. The purpose of the penalties is presumably to punish those who have deliberately acted against the rules, and to be a deterrent against those who consider doing so. I am satisfied that the Minister has thought very carefully —I know she has—about the level at which the fines should be set. She has come up with £100, but can she reassure me that the Government will monitor to see whether that is sufficient and, if it is not, that they will increase it accordingly using the regulations provided for under the Bill? Secondly, when an individual is deciding to break the rules and to sell an age-restricted tobacco product to a child, could they know whether they would be dealt with under the fixed penalty notice or under clause 1, which carries a much bigger and more deterring fine?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that she seeks. With regards to the issuing of fines and whether the shopkeeper would know, it will be for trading standards to have the total range of enforcement tools that are available to them, including being able to impose a fine of up to £2,500 upon conviction in a magistrates court, as well as the other, potentially unlimited fines that we have discussed—for breach of a restricted premises order—or, indeed, this on-the-spot fine, which hon. Members will appreciate is a much faster way to provide swift and immediate punishment of offenders. Its escalation has already been set out—two offences in two years leads to the restricted premises or sale order.
Bob Blackman
I always seek a spirit of compromise in such circumstances. At the moment, the Bill states:
“The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice must be £100.”
I am concerned about how that could be altered by regulation. Clearly, a consultation or other measures might be needed. A relatively simple amendment could have the clause state that the fixed penalty must be a minimum of £100 and can be varied by regulation. Will the Minister consider that as not necessarily an amendment today, but as something she might consider taking forward so that we can satisfy all sides?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion, and I will certainly take that away to reflect on it. My initial thought is that we could, unfortunately, end up with a situation where a particular individual or premises felt that they were being unfairly penalised, because they got £100 and I got £200. We can imagine that. Nevertheless, I think it is a really good idea and a very good proposal for compromise, so yes, I will reflect on it.
I think, Dame Siobhain, we have come to the end of the discussion, so I commend clauses 24 to 26 to the Committee.
The Chair
I apologise, Minister, but as this is the shadow Minister’s amendment, she in this case gets an opportunity to respond.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister, although of course I am disappointed at her rejecting the arguments that she has heard today. I welcome the suggestion from the hon. Member for Harrow East. I think that that would be a fairly reasonable way forward. Of course, we do not know whether the Minister will make those amendments.
The Minister talked about a fixed penalty notice of £100, but actually, that is not true, because people have 14 days and it is reduced to £50. I do not see £50 as a deterrent. I think that if it were £200, for example, and people therefore had to pay £100 within 14 days, that would be more likely to be a deterrent. I would therefore like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 27 provides that schedule 1 amends aspects of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017. It amends the existing provision relating to the handing over of tobacco to under-age people to align to the new age of sale. It also extends the offence to cover the handing over of vaping products to those under 18. The schedule updates definitions in the Public Health (Wales) Act to align to the definitions set out in the rest of the Bill, including the definitions for herbal smoking products and nicotine products. These are needed to ensure that the law in Wales is correct and accurate and aligns with the provisions that the Bill is introducing across the rest of the UK. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
We support the clause, which introduces schedule 1 to ensure that provisions on age of sale in the 2017 Act align with the new age of sale restrictions that we have discussed. Our colleagues in the Welsh Government have welcomed this Bill and pledged to work jointly with the Westminster Government to take collective action to tackle the harms caused by smoking and youth vaping across the United Kingdom. Wherever practicable, we support consistency of the law across all four nations, which will greatly aid public understanding and acceptability, support consistent enforcement and ensure that there is a level regulatory playing field for us to work towards a smoke-free future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
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
Global Health Agencies and Vaccine-Preventable Deaths
(7 months, 1 week 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 Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered global health agencies and vaccine-preventable deaths.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me time today to speak about the importance of vaccines and immunisation in tackling humanity’s greatest and deadliest diseases.
The discovery and development of vaccinations is one of the most significant and impactful achievements in human history. It was here in the UK that Edward Jenner first isolated cowpox to create the world’s first vaccine: the smallpox vaccine. Since that incredible scientific breakthrough, researchers across the world have worked on developing inoculating vaccines to combat all manner of infectious diseases, including polio, influenza, diphtheria, and of course tuberculosis. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, that cause is particularly close to my heart.
Vaccines are a vital part of our public health infrastructure. First and arguably most important, vaccines help to prevent the spread of diseases by supporting the body’s immune system to fight off infections. It is irrefutable that vaccines have a positive effect in reducing the incidence, spread and mortality of infectious diseases and that when a significant proportion of the population is vaccinated, herd immunity develops, which provides indirect protection for marginal and at-risk groups, including children, the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Vaccines not only help to eradicate disease, but significantly improve the quality of life of the population by protecting against further illnesses that can lead to long-term or chronic health problems.
History has shown us how effective vaccines are. Polio was one of the leading causes of death across the world in the 20th century. Since the global polio eradication initiative began in 1988, polio cases worldwide have decreased by a staggering 99%, and many countries, such as India, have been declared polio-free as a result of our efforts. That has been achieved only because of the ambitious vaccination programme. Measles used to kill approximately 2.5 million people each year, yet since the introduction of a vaccine, more than 23 million lives have been saved. More recently, the human papillomavirus vaccine, which is used to combat cervical cancer, has been shown to reduce incidence of cancer by 40%. The history of vaccination shows us all that vaccines work, they are safe, and they are the most effective way of preventing infectious diseases.
Last week, we celebrated World Immunisation Week. This annual event, led by the World Health Organisation, aims to mobilise the international community to overcome the barriers to vaccine coverage. I was pleased to join colleagues from across the House and across the global health landscape at last week’s brilliant event on World Immunisation Week, hosted by the APPG on vaccinations for all. At the reception we heard from representatives from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Gavi is a multilateral health organisation founded in 2000 that vaccinates over 50% of the children on the planet against infectious and deadly diseases. Through numerous health emergencies, Gavi’s innovation has underpinned a track record of success. It is now supporting promising vaccine candidates for malaria, TB and HIV.
The UK Government have a strong record of supporting Gavi, both with research and development, and with the roll-out of new vaccines. Gavi’s work aligns closely with the Government’s priority to end the preventable deaths of mothers and children. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Gavi is currently beginning to plan for its next replenishment, where countries around the world will commit financial resources to support Gavi’s mission. I ask the Minister: how has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office been engaging with Gavi in the lead-up to the replenishment, and can he give an assurance that the UK will remain one of the leading global supporters of Gavi’s mission?
Gavi is not the only development organisation that plays a leading role in vaccinating people in high-risk or conflict-affected areas. The Global Fund, established under a Labour Government in 2002, has a long and accomplished history of tackling the TB, malaria and HIV epidemics, helping to save nearly 60 million lives since its inception. The Global Fund is the world’s largest multilateral provider of grants for strengthening health systems, investing $1.5 billion a year from 2021 to 2023.
In many countries, the Global Fund works in partnership with Gavi to support the successful roll-out of immunisation across health systems. That is because we know that having strong, responsive and accountable local health systems is imperative to tackling novel and legacy infectious disease. Without a strong health system, cases of infection go unrecorded, symptoms go untreated, diseases spread and untimely deaths increase. I ask the Minister: what support the Government are giving to the Global Fund to support its mission of strengthening health systems around the world?
The success of the mRNA vaccine during the covid-19 pandemic has led to the development of a number of promising vaccine candidates that should start to be rolled out in the near future. One such vaccine is for malaria, which is one of the world’s deadliest diseases, killing a child almost every minute. In the last few years, the World Health Organisation has granted conditional approval to two malaria vaccines, with Cameroon being the first country in the world to receive them. I know that colleagues across the House will be fascinated to see the impact that the new malaria vaccine has. We all hope that the two new vaccines are a stepping stone to more innovative and effective tools and medicines that can be used to eradicate the disease for good.
We cannot, however, be complacent. Research shows that vaccines in isolation are not enough. Vaccine programmes must be accompanied by other effective public health measures, such as population screening, case finding, education programmes and robust health systems. Strong health systems are fundamental to a successful vaccine roll-out. Particular attention should be paid to healthcare worker training, supply chain management and facilities capable of delivering vaccines safely.
In addition, local manufacturing capabilities need to be strengthened so that vaccines can be produced anywhere in the world at a much quicker pace. We saw the limitations of a lack of local manufacturing during the covid-19 pandemic, when many countries in the global south were the last to receive covid vaccines, after many people in the global north had already received multiple jabs. The inequality in our vaccine manufacturing capabilities has cost lives before, and we must ensure it never happens again. Will the Minister say what the FCDO is doing to support countries around the world to develop their own vaccine manufacturing capabilities, so that they can respond more quickly to future global health emergencies?
I am thankful for the timely opportunity to raise this vital issue with the House. The UK has always played a leading role in the research, development and financing of vaccinations; it is a legacy of which we can be proud, but we must not rest on our laurels, as the last few years have shown us that global health emergencies can arise at any time, anywhere, with untold consequences. I hope the Government will continue to strongly support organisations such as Gavi and the Global Fund in their efforts to vaccinate and eradicate disease worldwide. I fully expect that when the Global Fund and Gavi host their respective replenishment conferences next year, the UK Government will generously pledge significant financial support to both. Perhaps the Minister can confirm today that this will be the case.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I turn to the SNP spokesman, can I check whether the Father of the House wishes to speak in the debate?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I apologise for not having been here on time. I think to make a speech would be wrong; I hope it will be acceptable to intervene on one of the Front-Bench speakers.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you very much indeed. Let us turn then to our SNP spokesman.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary.
I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this debate; the hon. Gentleman and I spend time together on the International Development Committee, and we are equally passionate about this topic. This is a timely and important debate. The hon. Gentleman put some really good, detailed questions to the Minister, and I am looking forward to hearing his responses later.
Throughout the world, people are living longer and healthier lives because of vaccines. Over the past 200 years, vaccination has saved more lives and prevented more serious diseases than any advance in recent medical history. Indeed, every year, 2 million to 3 million lives are saved globally because of immunisation. Only clean water rivals vaccines in reducing infectious diseases and deaths. Immunisation is therefore recognised by the World Health Organisation as
“the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right.”
An indisputable human right. It is important to remember that. Vaccines are critical to the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks. They underpin global health security and are a vital tool in the battle against antimicrobial resistance. Quite frankly, they are one of the best health investments money can buy.
A recent major landmark study published in The Lancet has revealed the global impact of vaccines on saving lives. Over the last 50 years alone, global immunisation efforts have saved an estimated 154 million lives, which is quite astonishing; nearly two thirds of those whose lives were saved were children. Of the vaccines included in the study, the measles vaccination has had the most significant impact on reducing impact mortality, accounting for 60% of the lives saved due to immunisation. As a result of vaccination against polio, more than 20 million people are able to walk today who would otherwise have been paralysed. The world is on the verge of eradicating polio once and for all. The study found that for each life saved through immunisation, an average of 66 years of full health was gained. A hundred years ago, that would be unimaginable. Vaccines speak huge volumes in themselves.
Vaccinations against 14 diseases, including diphtheria, hepatitis B, measles, meningitis A, rubella, tetanus, tuberculosis and yellow fever have directly contributed to reducing infant deaths by 40% globally, and by more than 50% in the African region. Those gains in childhood survival highlight the importance of protecting immunisation progress in every country of the world.
In the covid pandemic, the vaccination programme was crucial in reducing deaths and in allowing us to return to a life free from lockdowns and to reduce societal restrictions. Covid demonstrated to all of us just how reliant our public health systems have become on effective vaccinations. It also taught us important lessons about how vaccines are distributed fairly—or not—during a pandemic. We must take steps at international level to avoid a repeat of richer countries stockpiling more vaccines than we could use, while poorer countries waited months on end for the first shipment to arrive.
If we cast our minds back to 2021, many of us were double or even triple-dosed with vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, which have now become household names, but they supplied less than 2% of their vaccines to low-income countries. Three quarters of health workers in Africa had not received a single vaccine dose, and just 2% of people in low-income countries had received a single jab. The result, as we would imagine, was catastrophic, with avoidable loss of life. A report in The Lancet found that 600,000 people died as a result of the global failure to ensure that 40% of people in low- income countries were vaccinated in 2021. Even 40% is a low bar—we expected 100% of our citizens to have the vaccination.
The World Health Organisation is urging countries to work on concluding a new pandemic agreement, to ensure that the mistakes of the covid pandemic are not repeated. A new international, legally binding WHO instrument would strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and regulate the sharing of drugs and vaccines fairly, to avoid a repeat of covid-era failures.
Attempts by the WHO to pool intellectual property and scientific knowledge through the covid-19 technology access pool initiative were dismissed, and dismissed repeatedly in this House. Market-led redistribution through COVAX—the covid-19 vaccines global access scheme—and bilateral donations of vaccines, while highly noble, were deeply insufficient.
Dr Ghebreyesus, the director-general of WHO, said disparities in vaccine access were a “catastrophic moral failure”. He has since said that the pandemic treaty would help countries better guard against outbreaks and would be only the second time in the WHO’s 75-year history that it had agreed such a legally binding treaty—the previous one was a tobacco-control treaty in 2003. We must ensure that this treaty is a success, and I hope we hear endorsement from the Minister.
In September 2022, I travelled to Cape Town in South Africa to visit the mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub. In response to being left at the back of the vaccine queue and being locked out of innovative new medicines by giant businesses that put profit ahead of equitable distribution, scientists there have reverse-engineered Moderna’s mRNA vaccine. The mRNA technology is based on decades of public research, and the Moderna vaccine was almost entirely publicly funded, yet Moderna was the greatest and most private beneficiary from covid vaccinations. The model of drug development in which Governments pick up the tab for research and development, but pharma companies assume monopolies of drugs to guarantee profit, cannot continue. It is abhorrent and leads to continued global health inequity and preventable death.
Prior to arrival at the research and production facilities, I had expected a vast chemical and industrial plant. Instead, I found a tiny boutique company, working 24 hours, around the clock, but that in no way inhibits the impact its work can have. The shocking bit was that I was told that as little as 5 litres of vaccine—we know how big that is in a container—can supply up to 100 million doses. Having expected this huge industrial chemical plant, I found myself instead in a little room with what looked like a little pot still—I would say that, of course, coming from Scotland, with its whisky, but it was similar in scale to a pot still.
Equipped with the knowledge of how this technology works and is made, staff at the hub have the vision and ability to reproduce this vaccine to ensure equitable access for low and middle-income countries. The plan is for this to be scaled outwards, with small manufacturing plants spread throughout the world to provide for local and regional production of mRNA vaccines, turning on its head the narrative that pharmaceutical production must be high-cost and high-scale.
Crucially, this work has been shared with other scientists throughout the world. Indeed, there are 14 spokes— I love the imagery of the hub and spokes—in the rest of the world, which have become partners in creating an ecosystem in which knowledge is freely shared, production and access are more equal across the world, and a more resilient healthcare system, based on need, not greed, is built. That is a public health necessity, and it has the power to transform the way we provide medicines throughout the world.
As Charles Gore, the executive director of the Medicines Patent Pool, told me,
“this is the single most exciting health programme—no longer about dependency or donation, but about empowerment.”
The mRNA hub has huge potential, not only to act against covid vaccine inequity, but to manufacture treatments for a range of diseases, including diabetes, cancer, HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. It is therefore vital that we reaffirm our commitment to vaccination programmes for preventable diseases and to the global health agencies that provide them in the aftermath of the covid pandemic, which had a significant impact on the distribution of vaccinations.
In 2022, the WHO and UNICEF reported that there had been the largest sustained decline in childhood vaccinations in approximately 30 years, which all of us should be seriously worried about. In 2021, there were 12.4 million zero-dose children—an increase of 3 million from 2019. UNICEF’s immunisation road map to 2030 is being designed to address the setbacks in childhood immunisation programmes due to the covid-19 pandemic. The WHO’s “Immunisation Agenda 2030” is a global health plan focused on improving access to vaccines for all; it is looking to achieve 90% coverage for essential vaccines given in childhood and adolescence and to halve the number of children completely missing out on vaccines. Gavi’s 5.0 strategy includes the vision of
“Leaving no one behind with immunisation”
by 2030 and has a core focus on reaching zero-dose children and missed communities.
A large proportion of UK Government contributions to vaccination programmes are provided through global health initiatives such as the Global Fund, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the WHO. However, the decision— I keep having to repeat this—to cut UK official development assistance spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income has had a massive impact. The Minister will speak about the Government’s £1 million pledge to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is welcome, but the fact remains that it is a cut of almost 30% from their 2019 pledge. STOPAIDS has said:
“This is a disastrous decision that risks 1.54 million potential lives lost and over 34.5 million new transmissions across the three diseases, setting back years of progress.”
In recent years, a new malaria vaccine has reached nearly 2 million children, yet evidence to the International Development Committee from the malaria campaign organisations Malaria No More UK and Medicines for Malaria Venture stated that the aid reductions put the UK’s strategy at risk. They also said that cuts to broader health programmes would have significant knock-on impacts for malaria. While I have the opportunity, I would like to put on record my thanks to the drug discovery unit at the University of Dundee, in my constituency, which is world-leading in work on a single-dose treatment for malaria, in terms of both preventing it spreading and protecting people from getting it.
Support for global health agencies and for vaccines is vital in stopping preventable deaths, but that must be part of a well-funded, coherent global health strategy. The UK Government must therefore reverse their death sentence cuts to ensure that children throughout the world have access to vaccines that increase their prospects, as well as to public health systems that will be there for them during the rest of their lives.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for his commitment over the years to public health and international development. He is known for his work on tuberculosis and for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, but he has also shone on AIDS and malaria, and I thank him for that. I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to a visit to Malawi last July with the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, which I chair. As part of chairing the group, I also have an unpaid role as a trustee at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
This debate is timely: as I was coming to Westminster Hall, I noticed on the news that five babies in the UK have died of whooping cough. That just shows that if we let our vaccination rates drop domestically, it can have an impact. A lesson that we learn through our own mortality is that we must always keep up with public health measures. This debate is also of global importance, and we all agree that ending preventable deaths is an international development priority and a core pillar of our overseas development assistance strategy.
Immunisation is one of the most successful and cost-effective global health interventions in history, and I am particularly proud of the role that the UK, and the last Labour Government specifically, had in inventing the Department for International Development and leaving a legacy where the Global Fund, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and Unitaid were able to group together to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Sadly, in the last couple of years the numbers have plateaued, particularly in relation to malaria. They have not continued to fall as we would wish, and we must redouble our efforts to address that. As hon. Members have said, this debate follows World Immunisation Week. I should also note that the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases was in Dundee and saw the drug discovery unit, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) mentioned its important work on developing the vaccine.
As we know, one of the key principles of the sustainable development goals is that we leave no one behind, and the hon. Member for Dundee West outlined the lessons that we learned through the covid-19 pandemic and how we must redouble our efforts to address those. Last July, on a visit to Mitundu Community Hospital in Malawi, I was able to see at first hand the critical work of the expanded programme on immunisation. The hospital is an hour south of the capital Lilongwe, and it is where, in 2019, a little girl named Lusitana became the first child in the world to receive a dose of the groundbreaking and British-backed RTS,S malaria vaccine. During the visit, I also met five-year-old Evison Saimon, the second child to receive the vaccine in all its doses. Saimon and his mother talked about how delighted they were not to have malaria in their household. We can read all the things we like, but it really comes home to us when we actually go and meet families abroad and see this important work being done.
We also heard from representatives of Malawi’s expanded programme on immunisation and the national malaria control programme about how the pilot programme is being rolled out, with safety concerns managed and household surveys showing the positive impact on individual families and communities. Since the introduction of the vaccine, Malawi has seen a consistent reduction in cases and deaths in the age group eligible to receive the vaccine. Across the three pilot countries—Ghana, Kenya and Malawi—more than 4.5 million doses have been administered through the implementing countries’ routine immunisation programmes, reaching nearly 1.7 million children. The World Health Organisation estimates that RTS,S could save the lives of an additional 40,000 to 80,000 African children each year once implemented at scale. It is especially important to note that the pilot was financed through an unprecedented collaboration between three global health funding bodies—Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, with GSK donating up to 10 million doses. We have so many good examples of GSK’s UK involvement, which we can all be proud of.
At this critical juncture in the fight against malaria, we really must not allow global progress to continue to stall. We must support the groundbreaking malaria vaccines and see how other countries, such as the 28 countries across Africa that are due to roll out a vaccine in the next few years, go with the roll-out of the programme. Vaccines have a limited impact if they do not reach the communities that need them most and are not joined up with other strategies, such as insecticide bed nets—I know that colleagues here have seen those—and occasional spraying, which we also saw when we were in Malawi. We also know that health data management systems are crucial to understanding the impact of those important measures.
Not only does immunisation save lives, but it has a profound knock-on effect for families, communities and countries. The economy is helped enormously in many parts of the world by such important, life-saving initiatives. As part of Gavi’s mission to save lives and protect people’s health by increasing the equitable and sustainable use of vaccines, it has helped to vaccinate more than 1 billion children in 78 lower-income countries.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the opportunity for more manufacturing in country. I was pleased that FCDO representatives and other partners recently joined us for a roundtable in the House to talk about the opportunity to work with the Serum Institute, which was so crucial during covid-19. That would be a triangular partnership between India, the UK and many African countries. The hon. Member for Dundee West has seen that in action in South Africa, and I am sure that it can be rolled out across other African countries too.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the Government’s intention to continue to support these vital global agencies in working to end vaccine-preventable deaths with strong pledges at the upcoming replenishments of Gavi and the Global Fund. Will he also update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to help to build and support research and development, as well as manufacturing, in particular to build capacity in vaccine manufacturing?
On the British science side, which is so important, what is the Minister doing to support the higher education sector, particularly where we have important collaborations? There have been setbacks due to Brexit and bumps along the road. What is he doing to promote and support our excellence in research, particularly the deep pockets of research in our universities? They sometimes report feeling a bit unsupported, and I know that the Minister will wish to put on record his support for international students being welcomed in the UK and for the rebuilding of collaborations across Europe, as well as for work with US partners and in country in Africa. I look forward to hearing his thoughts.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a great pleasure once again to perform under your benign sway, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on his excellent speech, as well as on his work with the APPG and on the Select Committee, alongside the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). So constructive are the performances that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall always turns in that the first draft of the speech given to me by officials referred to him as “my hon. Friend”. I would not wish to embarrass him by any suggestion on that score, but he does a great deal of good work, for which we are very grateful. We are also very grateful that the Father of the House is here, which emphasises the importance of the subject and the all-party nature of our concerns.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I reflect that it is 45 years since I served on the Select Committee on Overseas Development, before 1979. The point that I would like my right hon. Friend to consider, if not to answer today, is how to go on ensuring that vaccination and immunisation programmes work in times of conflict. I spent this morning with Action Against Hunger looking at United Nations Security Council resolution 2417 of 2018, which concerns conflict and hunger, but the problem of conflict and the hindering of vaccination programmes also needs deep consideration.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will answer straightaway. It is worth emphasising that we are getting better at operating in very contested spaces. For example, he will know of the work that Education Cannot Wait is doing in very difficult circumstances, particularly where people have been forced to move or where there has been migration as a result of violence or climate change. On all these things, we are getting better at serving communities in extreme difficulty, but my hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, and if I have anything further to add on that, I will write to him shortly.
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the importance of immunisation for global health. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee West, who raised a number of interesting points, all of which I think I am going to cover, and to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who speaks on these matters for the Opposition, in particular for the comments that she made about GSK. It is worth pointing out that this is an area where a vital part is played not only by the private sector and the pharmaceutical industry, but by philanthropic organisations, many of which are very concerned with the area. There is no doubt that, as Bill Gates always says, vaccinating children is one of the best value for money interventions that can be made, with the widest and deepest effects. The hon. Lady’s points about GSK are very welcome indeed.
The hon. Lady asked me about R&D issues and about higher education, and I will make two points. First, she is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the R&D budget. She will have noticed that, during a very difficult period in which cuts—sometimes very serious cuts—were made in development spending, the R&D budget has been defended throughout. Indeed, as we have projected forward the draft figures, we have again protected the R&D budget in development, and it will, I think, be rising over the next few years. Like her, I have seen the remarkable work that that budget is doing. In the UK, I recently visited the Jenner Institute and saw the brilliant work that so many are doing there. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of R&D.
Secondly, in relation to spreading British higher education skill into Africa, I point out to the hon. Lady the recently announced programme for the Tropical Health and Education Trust, which I launched in London. THET does a huge amount of good work in this respect. We had an excellent programme some 10 years ago, and I am very pleased indeed that we have been able to renew that.
All my colleagues who spoke in the debate shone a spotlight on our lifesaving work with partners, including Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and Unitaid. We see strong support in every part of the House for those lifesaving efforts, and I am very grateful for the contributions of Members here today in that respect.
I will endeavour to respond to all the points raised, but first I want to make a point specifically about Gavi, which I was asked about by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall. He will, I think, recall that in 2011, when I had the privilege of being the International Development Secretary, we did the Gavi replenishment in London, and there has been a subsequent replenishment since that time. The point that I want to make to him is that that pivotal replenishment in 2011 was very heavily supported. Incidentally, we know that 83% of the British public thought that spending taxpayers’ money on vaccinating children under five in the developing world should be supported; they showed approval for that. I thought that was a very encouraging statistic then, and I have hopes for the upcoming replenishment, on which I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman. I cannot put a figure on the table now, but both I and the Foreign Secretary are very focused on the replenishment, because we know the good that this work does, which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently set out. We will undoubtedly be key supporters of the replenishment when we make our contribution.
I was also asked about the Global Fund. If I may say so, I thought that the hon. Member for Dundee West was a little unfair in criticising the figure. It was the first significant pledge when I returned to the Government in October 2022; we managed to get the system to agree. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very keen on spending the money on the Global Fund, as was the Prime Minister, who emphasised the importance of the work, and £1 billion—a thousand million pounds—of taxpayers’ money is not to be sniffed at. If the hon. Member for Dundee West looks at what Peter Sands, the chief executive of the Global Fund, said at the time and subsequently about Britain’s support, both financial and in many other ways, I am sure that his spirits will be lifted.
In respect of the pandemic accord negotiations, which the hon. Member also mentioned, although I have nothing to say today, I think that they are proceeding well. The British Government have spent a great deal of time on that this week, and I hope that when the announcements are made in due course by Tedros from the WHO, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased and relieved at what we are able to achieve.
Vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives over the last 50 years, including more than 100 million children. That is six lives saved every minute for five decades. I am sure that we can all agree that this is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. The UK’s support for childhood vaccinations around the world has played its part, together with institutions including the World Health Organisation, Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid. However, the covid pandemic threatened to undo our hard-won progress, sparking the largest reversal in child vaccination rates in three decades and leading to increased outbreaks and deaths. Although vaccination rates have recovered since, global health is, as with everything, bound up with geopolitics. We stand at a crucial juncture in that respect. In these increasingly challenging times, we can only maintain our progress on global vaccines by uniting forces and standing together to ensure the health of future generations.
Let me be clear: reaching the world’s children with vaccination remains a top priority for Britain, as set out so clearly in our widely endorsed international development White Paper. We are determined to enhance our partnerships with individual countries and strengthen our collaborations with organisations such as Gavi, which will help continue to save countless lives.
The UK has supported Gavi since its inception 24 years ago. By bringing together Governments, private sector foundations, civil society organisations and vaccine manufacturers, it has vaccinated—that is to say, Britain has vaccinated—more than 1 billion children, saving more than 17 million lives. I am glad to say that Britain was one of the six original donors, and it hosted Gavi’s most successful summits, in 2011 and then in 2020, when we committed £1.65 billion over five years. Later that year, at the UN General Assembly, we pledged an additional £548 million to the Gavi COVAX advance market commitment to support lower income countries with covid vaccines.
We are now looking ahead, working closely with Gavi to develop a strong strategy for the next five years. That includes reaching all children with routine immunisations, and better integrating that with primary healthcare services. We want to improve co-ordination with other global health institutions to ensure that programmes are sustainable and, most importantly, led by countries themselves.
We are also looking ahead to the gathering hosted by the French Government, the African Union and Gavi this summer in Paris. President Macron will launch an accelerator mechanism to help African vaccine manufacturers produce vaccines in Africa and become commercially sustainable on a long-term basis. The UK looks forward to announcing the details of our support for that work, demonstrating the importance we place on a united global effort to improve access to vaccines and better prepare for future health emergencies. Those are all things that I have discussed in detail with Akinwumi Adesina, the president of the African Development Bank.
The roll-out of the malaria vaccines, which were referred to, not least by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, highlights the role the UK has already played in end-to-end support of innovation vaccines. First, working in collaboration with partners in India, our world-leading scientists helped to develop these game-changing new vaccines, which must be used in combination with bed nets and chemoprotection. Then, supported by UK funding, Gavi, the Global Fund, Unitaid and the World Health Organisation set up pilots to provide the evidence necessary for a wider roll-out, and Britain’s MedAccess, so brilliantly led by Michael Anderson, worked with Gavi to secure the vaccine supply.
The vaccine roll-out will protect more than 6 million children from malaria by the end of next year. This is the first time that Gavi and the Global Fund will be working together on a single disease, and it presents a wonderful opportunity to strengthen their efforts even further. The wider work to prevent and treat diseases such as malaria, HIV and TB is also helping to save countless lives.
Britain was a founding donor to Unitaid 20 years ago, and has contributed more than half a billion pounds over the years. Today, more than 170 million people benefit from health products supported by Unitaid every year, from the latest HIV treatments to next-generation mosquito nets. Two weeks ago, on 24 April, I was delighted to join a parliamentary reception hosted by Unitaid, at which I reiterated Britain’s firm support for it.
Another great example of our investment in cutting-edge research and development is the recent deployment in Nigeria of the innovative MenFive vaccine. That revolutionary new shot is a powerful shield against the five major strains of the bacteria that cause meningitis. The research into MenFive was funded by Britain and developed through a partnership between PATH—a global non-profit organisation—and the Serum Institute of India. The roll-out of 1 million vaccines in northern Nigeria came from Gavi-funded stocks approved by the World Health Organisation last year. MenFive will be rolled out in other countries—Niger is expected to start vaccinating imminently—giving a big boost to our work to end meningitis globally by the end of the decade. That is exactly the kind of scientific innovation that Britian will continue to support, driving further break- throughs that will help to wipe out other preventable diseases.
While we are speaking of the future, let me turn to the matter of replenishments for our partners for the next 12 months, including Gavi, the Global Fund and the World Health Organisation. As I confirmed in my opening remarks, we are considering how and where our funding can have the greatest impact, and we look forward to announcing our contributions at the replenishment events.
I hope I have done justice to the work that Britain has done with our partners, which has saved countless lives. Those collaborations and scientific breakthroughs have enabled us to eradicate smallpox, and—thank goodness —we are on the verge of eradicating polio, which the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall raised. Children around the world are now protected against 19 deadly diseases through routine immunisation via Gavi.
There is, of course, more to do, and we will keep up the momentum. Nobody should die of a preventable illness, and everyone, everywhere should have access to these wonderful innovations. That is how we build a healthier and fairer world for all.
Mr Sharma
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate, which has addressed many issues. I thank the Front Benchers for their support and their contributions. In particular, I thank the Father of the House for his presence and his intervention on the Minister.
I also thank the Minister for his response. This is a matter very close to both our hearts, and is very important to all those present and to people outside the Chamber. Thank you, Sir Gary, for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. I thank everybody present.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered global health agencies and vaccine-preventable deaths.
Global Intergenerational Week 2024
(7 months, 1 week 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
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Global Intergenerational Week 2024.
For accuracy, I should point out that Global Intergenerational Week was in April, but it does such great work and it is a real pleasure to speak on this important topic. I am deeply passionate about this idea, and I thank Generations Working Together, who lead Global Intergenerational Week events in Scotland, for its briefing. I also thank all 407 contributors to the online public engagement activity for the debate. All 407 responses have been helpful and illuminating, and I will mention a few of them later.
The campaign theme for this year’s Global Intergenerational Week was focused on how intergenerational work is too often perceived as nice, rather than essential. Generations Working Together argues that intergenerational practice ought to be an essential consideration in upstream health policy, and an essential practice in social care, education, and urban planning and development. This is essential in order to build age-friendly communities—which I feel very qualified to talk about—defined by the World Health Organisation as a community that optimises opportunities for health, participation and security as people age. In an age-friendly community, policy, services and infrastructure are designed to respond flexibly to age-related needs and preferences.
As I said, Global Intergenerational Week ran from 24 to 30 April and was marked by events and webinars across 15 different countries, with landmarks lit up across the globe, including Melbourne Town Hall, something in Valencia—my Spanish is not up to pronouncing that; I would not want to murder the language—Adelaide’s Parliament House and, closer to home, Rhyl tower in Wales and Belfast City Hall, as well as the Hydro in Glasgow, and the University of Glasgow. The movement is moving forward.
We live in a time of huge demographic shift towards an ageing population, a phenomenon that is happening in almost every country across the world. That is frequently presented as a significant social challenge. People often look at it through a negative lens, but it also presents an opportunity.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady is developing an interesting area of public discourse. Does she agree that one of the most positive developments in recent years has been the creation and growth of the Youth Parliament? I had the opportunity last week to meet Shetland’s two new Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament, Joe Smith and Bertie Summers. I was struck by the fact that although we were talking about the same issues that Shetlanders would identify with across the piece, they brought a completely different and fresh perspective to them.
Marion Fellows
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his useful intervention. I absolutely agree. I have met my MSYPs frequently. They bring a breath of fresh air to arguments and discussions, and we should treasure that. I am looking around the room, and I am not making any huge comment on age, but I know the person who helps us get speakers into Westminster Hall searched quite hard to find a very young Member of the SNP. [Laughter.]
Rather than reducing our ageing population to a strain on economic resources, we must use intergenerational opportunities as a powerful and cost-effective challenge to that narrative. Young and old people are often separated from each other due to age-segregated activities and living arrangements, changes in family patterns and the breakdown of traditional community structures.
Being a granny is my best job ever. I am fortunate enough to see my grandchildren regularly, but intergenerational interaction need not be confined only to within families. Older and younger people have skills and resources of considerable value to one another, and despite the prevalence of negative age-categorised stereotypes that are often perpetuated on social media, different generations have a lot in common and share many areas of common concern.
Older folk are not all the same, no more than younger people can all be categorised in the same way. Gemma, one of the contributors to the public engagement exercise for this debate, outlined how integration across generations leads to broadened perspectives. In her experience, she said that
“with older people, our values and political views may sometimes be different but there are always more similarities than differences.”
Another contributor, Catherine, responded:
“One can discuss different perspectives on issues. This tends to lead to healthy debate, and I find it a good way to temper modern idealism while allowing older generations to become more positive about certain issues.”
Intergenerational activity is one way of addressing the issues that are key to all generations. That is why it is so important to encourage intergenerational working and why that is the raison d’être of the annual Global Intergenerational Week. By promoting positive attitudes and breaking down stereotypes across age groups, we can build a more inclusive society that values the contributions of every generation. Will the Minister discuss that approach in his answer? Will he talk to people in his Department and across other Departments, because what we need is joined-up thinking right across the piece?
Embracing intergenerational integration will not only enhance social cohesion, but create an environment where sustainable intergenerational relationships can flourish, benefiting everybody. A response to the public engagement activity that I particularly enjoyed came from another Marion—not me, I promise—who described her interactions with young people as
“very uplifting, their energy, creativity and different way of seeing the world are inspiring and energising in themselves.”
I can only echo that from my experience as a further education lecturer, when I was in daily contact with young people—apart from the very generous holidays, of course. I worked with many young people across the piece, and I found that my perspective on things changed quite considerably through listening to them. This goes back to the stereotyping of ages and people, and actually believing that they are all the same, but that is not true.
A strengthening of social capital or civic virtue is at the core of this idea, building a sense of community through reciprocal social relations,. There are also benefits in education. The national mentoring partnership in 2017 reported that at-risk youths involved in intergenerational monitoring programmes are 55% more likely to be enrolled in further or higher education.
The benefits go beyond strengthening communities and education outcomes. Intergenerational practice crucially provides a setting that can help to relieve isolation and involve people in community activities, leading to improved general health and wellbeing. During Global Intergenerational Week in 2024, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) opened the intergenerational learning roadshow, attesting to the importance of good intergenerational practice in reducing health inequalities.
As an aside, an older person teaching younger folk how to do something as basic as making soup is a wonderful thing, because it provides the younger person with a sense of worth and a way of saving money. I see that often in my constituency when I visit some of these different organisations, as I do regularly, and see the value of people learning. The knitting group is another perfect example of that, giving young people a skill that they did not have before.
A report from Generations Working Together and NHS Scotland outlined:
“Poor health, negative stereotypes and barriers to participation all currently marginalise older people, undermine their contribution to society and increase the costs of population ageing.”
Likewise, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s neighbourhood approaches to loneliness programme documented that social isolation in later life is not just a risk factor for depression, but dangerous for physical health and mobility. That shows the important societal value of the practice, but it is also important to note that intergenerational practices help to combat social isolation across all age groups. Loneliness and social isolation are increasingly prevalent in our younger generation.
Research from Generations United shows that older adults who participate in intergenerational programmes experience a 20% decrease in loneliness. Again, I have seen that in some of the neighbourhood programmes locally, which do such good work. It is interesting to notice the difference in both the younger person and the older person—both benefit. The health impact of loneliness is comparable with smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day, according to a study published in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal. Having had some personal experience of loneliness, that is very true. It can weigh down heavily sometimes on older people and, as I have pointed out, on younger people, too, some of whom spend more and more time alone.
Intergenerational practice is therefore a solution to loneliness right across the age spectrum. The value of bringing people together cannot be overestimated when it comes to challenging ageism and negative stereotypes. According to the World Health Organisation’s global campaign to combat ageism, intergenerational activity is a proven way to reduce it, and doing so can help us live up to seven and a half years longer—I am keen on that, I have to add. It is therefore essential that we improve and increase access to intergenerational activities. Not only does the evidence point towards the need for intergenerational practice to tackle a range of social problems, but there is a demand for it. The Centre for Ageing Better found that four in five people want to mix with people of different ages and generations.
We as parliamentarians must do our best to highlight barriers to intergenerational interaction, especially when we consider our ageing population. Some of the barriers listed by respondents centred around communication, where there are difficulties understanding terminology or descriptors, and some older people feel that they have to be more sensitive or careful. Other barriers mentioned were practical issues, such as rural deprivation, poor transport and a lack of face-to-face opportunities.
Many younger respondents feel that financial issues are the biggest barrier. Jenny outlined that
“many older people who have no mortgage/rent or dependants find it very hard to grasp the real impact of the cost-of-living crisis.”
Anna said:
“Older people frequently don’t understand the real practical barriers for people my age, from home ownership and being able to afford children.”
Tom felt that intergenerational interaction and communities were being eroded more generally due to low rates of house building and how it forces young people to move away from the communities in which they were born and raised, severing community ties.
It is essential that we attempt to remove barriers to intergenerational integration. It benefits society as a whole and each one of us can benefit from it. At a time when the world is becoming more polarised, never has community and understanding across generations been so important. I commend Generations Working Together for the crucially important work that it does and highlight the importance of Global Intergenerational Week 2024 for raising awareness of the topic. Does the Minister agree that we would all benefit from more intergenerational working, that health, social care, housing, education and, even more essentially, urban planning and development should be further moved, and that levelling up would be good for all generations?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this meeting, Mr Efford. It is great to speak in this debate alongside my hon. Friend and SNP colleague the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I am afraid I cannot profess to speak for young people, as I am now 38. I am told that if you are under 45 you are considered a young parliamentarian, but I can probably no longer consider myself young. Nine years in this job has given me quite a lot of grey hairs that I never had before.
I really appreciate the diversity within Parliament. It is not good enough yet—we are not as diverse a Parliament as we should be—but the plethora of voices and different outlooks means that we make better decisions, because we all have different life experiences and come from different backgrounds. I thank Generations Working Together for the work that it has done for Global Intergenerational Week, and particularly for highlighting it in Scotland and ensuring that as many people as possible are talking about it.
My hon. Friend said that intergenerational work should be seen not as something nice, but as something essential. I completely agree, but it is also something nice: it is something fabulous that should be celebrated, talked about and written into practice at all levels where the Government have a level of control. All kinds of public sector organisation should be expected to consider, work with and implement intergenerational practice wherever they can, so that we can get the best possible decisions made and the best outcomes for everyone.
Nobody is simply a strain on economic resources. Whether somebody is young or older, whether they are black or white, whether they are disabled or are running marathons every weekend, whether they are gay or asexual, whether they are a migrant or have lived here all their life, whether they vote or not, every single person has value. Every single person has a unique experience and a unique perspective that they can bring to the table. We have a responsibility as representatives to listen to all those voices—every single one—in order to make the best possible decisions. If we are listening and understanding all those different perspectives as best we can, we are more likely to consider them when we are taking decisions, and to make better decisions for everybody in our constituencies across these islands.
In Scotland and in the SNP, civic values run through everything we do. In Scotland the people are sovereign, not Parliament. We should, and do, celebrate diversity and value everyone for their perspective. I am unsurprised that this work has had a great base and has taken off in Scotland.
I want to talk about a few of my personal experiences and things I have heard. There was a great Girlguiding reception in Parliament this week, with the first Westminster Palace Brownies. It was truly brilliant to see the Brownies in Parliament—it was really cool coming up the stairs and hearing applause, because it is so rare to hear it in Westminster. Hearing that applause and hearing the Brownies singing was absolutely fabulous.
I was a Rainbow leader a number of years ago. One of the best things we did in my time was taking the Rainbows, who were very small—from age five to seven or eight—to sing Christmas carols for the older people in the nursing home next door. It was just such a fabulous event, because everybody enjoyed it: the Rainbows had a brilliant time singing and the older people in the care home really enjoyed it too. Maybe they did not see an awful lot of young people in their lives; maybe they were isolated and lonely, but they enjoyed those interactions. I genuinely loved doing it.
At a sheltered housing surgery in my constituency a few years ago, I met a chap from Aberdeen who had been a tram driver. The trams in Aberdeen stopped running in 1958, so he was a wee bit older than me. I am not a geek, honest—no, I definitely am—but I have a bit of an obsession with public transport. Hearing about what driving a tram was like and about his experiences and the routes he used to take made the history of my city come alive. I love the social history stuff, but actually being able to hear it from someone was one of the coolest things I have done in my time.
This week, I shared with a group of colleagues a photo of my family that was taken 13 years ago. We had five generations in one room, in one photo: me, my son, my dad, my granny and my great-granny. Most people are not lucky enough to have five generations together, but we have generations of about 25 years each. The experience for everybody was so affirming. It was so brilliant to be part of the thread that links those generations. We all come with different perspectives and all come with different experiences.
My great-granny’s dad was killed during the first world war. As a result, she grew up in absolute poverty. I compare that with the situation we are in now: my children have absolutely not grown up in poverty. The different perspectives and experiences, and the improvements we have managed to make in our own lives over the generations, were really lovely for my great-granny to see, hear and understand. She knew that my children would not have the same childhood she did or the same struggles she faced. It was really brilliant on that account.
Understanding between the generations breaks down barriers and makes for better decision making. I have mentioned this a few times, but there are studies that show that a company with a more diverse board makes more money as a result. That is empirical, solid, statistical evidence showing that diversity ensures that lots of people with different perspectives can come together and make the best possible decisions. It is incredibly important.
I have met Age UK a couple of times recently and have spoken in this House about digital exclusion—I am thinking particularly about older people, as well as people in areas of deprivation, for example. I agree entirely that lots of older people can teach lots of things to younger people, but younger people also have valuable experience and understanding that they can teach older people. There are organisations in my constituency like Silver City Surfers, which brings together older people and younger people so the younger people can teach the older ones how to access online banking or online shopping, or how to check online when their bin collection is. That intergenerational learning, which can be passed in both directions, is really brilliant. Everybody, no matter their age, has some wisdom that they can offer and some learning that they can share.
I have worked as a local authority councillor and have spent a lot of time dealing with various services in the public sector. There can be silos in organisations’ decision making, particularly in the public sector; I do not know whether it is the same in the private sector. We need to break down those barriers. Ensuring that people of different ages and different generations, and people from different public sector organisations, can spend time and make decisions together leads to better decisions for everybody.
In Scotland, we have the “Getting it right for every child” curriculum. Part of the approach in schools and local authority care settings is about ensuring that we get things right for every single chid. If I had a magic wand and were in charge of everything, I would definitely go far further and ensure that we are trying to get it right for every single person, looking at their unique circumstances and providing the support that they need to meet the challenges they face at that stage of their life.
One thing I talk about quite a lot in Westminster Hall—I am always surprised that Labour Members do not talk about it more, because they should—is the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It is one of the most truly brilliant pieces of legislation I have ever heard about. It is on a par with some of the stuff on global domestic wellbeing that we are doing in Scotland, and the founding of the wellbeing economy partnerships. It is entirely about ensuring that decision making is protecting and improving the quality of life for the generations who are coming through. The Future Generations Commissioner in Wales ensures that the decisions taken by public sector bodies protect younger generations, not just older generations, and maintain or improve everyone’s quality of life. It is incredibly important to think about how our decision making improves wellbeing for individuals as well as for societies and communities. That Act is incredibly useful and underlines that point.
Lastly, I want to talk about trust and loneliness, which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has spoken about. An awful lot of young people who have been through covid and have spent a period of their school life at home have an issue with trust. They do not necessarily have trust in their teachers, in authority figures or in older people, because a period of their formative years, when they should have been learning about interactions, had to spent away from others, isolated and lonely as a result of covid. Breaking down the barriers and putting younger and older people together, so they can work together and do things as a team, rebuilds that trust. It makes it more likely that younger people will say, “Actually, I recognise the value, experience and wisdom that people of other generations bring to the table. I recognise that they might have a different perspective from mine, but it’s just as valuable and just as important as mine.”
Getting young people to engage with the systems that they need to engage with, instead of just feeling that they have to step out, is particularly important during a cost of living crisis. A Girlguiding survey last year said that 63% of girls living in the most deprived areas worry about the cost of living and its impact on them and their family. Young people are worried about that and are struggling to engage with authority figures because of what they have been through. Improving relationships and getting young people work with older people, so they realise that they are not terrifying—that in most cases they are lovely—really helps to break down the barriers and ensure that young people can contribute to the full extent of their talents.
Thank you again for chairing this meeting, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw once more: I am absolutely delighted and honoured to stand beside her in this room.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing a debate on this subject.
I always say, and I really do believe, that being a Member of Parliament is the best job in the world, but I was delighted to hear the hon. Lady speak about her joy in being a granny, which is a very important job indeed. It is such a privilege to be here for the first time Parliament has debated this really important subject. Although Global Intergenerational Week was a few weeks ago, it is excellent to see colleagues gathered here to discuss it.
It is really important that we embrace intergenerational practice and relationships, whether that is as individuals, groups, organisations, Governments or political parties. We have heard many great examples during this brief discussion today, such as living arrangements bringing people together, as well as different projects and organisations, and oral history, which I agree is incredibly important.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about children being brought into residential homes. My children also had that experience when they were attending a co-operative nursery. It was incredibly important for them, particularly as they do not have close relatives living nearby; I felt that was very important indeed.
As well as bringing people together, we also need to make sure that all people of different generations and age groups are protected from the kind of stereotyping that we are hearing about, and from discrimination. We need to ensure that everyone, regardless of age, is treated with dignity and respect, and treated equally in our society. As well as protections that apply to people of any age, the Equality Act 2010 enshrines in law protections against discrimination on the basis of age. No one should be discriminated against because they are or are not a certain age or in a certain age group. For 14 years, that landmark legislation, which many other countries have tried to copy, has protected people of all ages from direct and indirect discrimination, as well as from harassment and victimisation. It has helped to build understanding of the challenges that different age groups face. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw stressed that many of those challenges are common to different generations.
It was great to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North talking about some of the privileges we have as parliamentarians and the job that we do when we are seeking to represent everyone in our constituencies. I too had the privilege of seeing the Brownies at their first ever meeting in the House of Commons, which was very exciting.
Another privilege we have as parliamentarians—I am sure others will recognise this—is that people send us reading material. I was sent a fascinating book, “Generations”, by Bobby Duffy, who has done a lot of work looking into the stereotypes about different generations. The book comprehensively demolishes the idea that, for example, young people today are fixated on ephemeral issues, are only interested in having fun and that issues around the cost of living are not important to them. It shows that younger generations are concerned about the health, wellbeing and success of future generations. I am glad that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act was highlighted. It is a great achievement of the Welsh Government, which ensures that the concerns of future generations are structurally represented in Government.
Some big challenges have been talked about this afternoon including mental health issues. In some cases, sadly, they carry across the generations. The issue of loneliness was rightly mentioned. For young people, social media use often exacerbates loneliness rather than brings people together to combat it. Lonliness is also a big challenge for many older people. Age UK has done wonderful work on this, but says that 1.4 million older people report themselves as often being lonely, which is a terrible statistic for us to reflect on, and surely—hopefully—to act on. It was great to hear about some of the projects combating loneliness in Motherwell. The Clockhouse Project in Blackbird Leys in my constituency also does great work bringing older people together. Clearly, though, we need to do more.
We need to do more across the generations when it comes to mental health, as well. In particular, we need to tackle the crisis in children’s mental health and the currently very long waiting lists for support. We need much higher staffing levels within the NHS, but we also need to ensure that this is integrated with schooling, so that there are specialist mental health professionals at every school. There must be much more open access to mental health care, whether that is for young, middle-aged or older people.
We have to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Today, unfortunately, inequality is entrenched across the country. We are seeing inequality that is regional, inequality that is racial, inequality between men and women, and class inequality. Traditionally in the UK, there has been a promise that we can tell our children and grandchildren, “If you work hard, you will be able to get on, no matter what your background is.” That increasingly has not been the case for many people in our society, unfortunately.
Many older people who have worked hard all their lives are in an increasingly difficult situation. The housing crisis was rightly referred to, and clearly that is a huge challenge for many young people, but as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly said, it is increasingly a challenge for older people, too. Lots of older people are now living in precarious, poor-quality, private rented sector housing. This is the first time that that has been the case for a number of decades, and we really need to be facing up to that.
We must consider all generations when it comes to big challenges such as combating violence in our communities. I pay tribute to the work of Age UK, but I was very concerned to hear that it was Age UK’s hard work that led to Government systematically collecting information about the rates of domestic violence against older people, and that the information had not previously been routinely collected. That is really concerning. It should have been routinely collected, because we need to learn from it to ensure that every older person is safe. Of course, we also need to understand new forms of violence and control. That means having a focus on the kind of online issues that were touched on in this debate.
We need to look at how, ultimately, the different generations are progressing or otherwise. There is a measure of that: income persistence. The UK currently has American-style levels of income persistence which are significantly higher than the OECD average. That means that your parents’ income determines a huge amount of what your income as a young person and subsequent generations’ will be. Other countries are far better at disrupting that persistence. We believe that we have to take action on this and that the Social Mobility Commission should be involved in recording and analysing data on it. We need to do that and to learn from analysis of other sources, such as the longitudinal education outcomes data, so we can ensure much greater intergenerational income mobility.
I feel that I cannot not mention the need to recognise the contribution of every single generation to our society and economy. One generation that I have talked about a lot is people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, particularly women. That group of women does not get talked about very much, and are not represented very much in the media. They do a lot, and though they tend not to complain very much, they are often squeezed at both ends. They provide huge amounts of care as sandwich carers. Many are trying to hold down a job. They are supporting children and often their partners or parents too, both financially and emotionally. Often they are experiencing health problems as well, and some are finding it challenging to manage menopausal symptoms alongside work that is not sufficiently flexible or suitable.
Politics simply has not kept up with the requirements of that generation. It should keep up, because the number of women falling into that generation and moving out of the labour market is very significant. We have calculated that our economy is losing about £7 billion in untapped potential because of those women being forced out of the labour market. Surely we need to do better there. We need to be acting on these issues.
Kirsty Blackman
I commend the hon. Member for highlighting that group of women. She is absolutely right: they do not get talked about enough. It is a responsibility of parliamentarians to ensure that we are talking about them, thanking them for their contribution and trying to make life better for them, or at least slightly more bearable than it currently is, so I thank her very much for doing so.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for what she says. It is important that Parliament is in step with society as well.
We have seen a huge amount of change, with much of the focus on these kinds of issues. We have seen significant positive change across the generations. It is interesting that the amount of childcare undertaken by both parents has changed substantially in recent years, albeit still not the progress we would like. We see it in shared leave, at nursery and school pick-ups, and in time off when the kids are ill or during school holidays. All those things are now viewed as part of the parcel of not just being a mother, but being a parent. None the less, much more progress is still needed.
There has been change over the generations, and, as I say, Parliament and politics really need to catch up on all of that. In doing so, we can work together across generations and learn from each other about what has changed things in a positive direction. That really gets to the root of what Global Intergenerational Week is all about. It was mentioned earlier that more diverse teams tend to have far better outcomes—particularly in business, but it applies everywhere. If we do not include every generation in our decision making, we will not take the right and effective decisions. The work undertaken by those who have been promoting Global Intergenerational Week really underlines that. It also enables us to celebrate the wonderful contribution of all generations—surely we should be doing that too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this debate to mark Global Intergenerational Week, and all those who have contributed to the debate. I put on record my thanks to all the organisations in this country and around the world that have made it a really important week. It has been fantastic to hear about its success this year and the range of inspiring community-led initiatives that have encouraged people of all ages to come together in meaningful ways to build friendships and develop new skills that people probably did not realise they had.
I was struck by the hon. Lady’s comments on housing. My mum has been living in a housing association flat in a complex full of lots of—dare I say—older people, but we have just this month managed to get her into a bungalow on a street full of families; it is a housing association older people’s bungalow, but it is on a street full of families. The difference I saw in my mum in one day, going from that flat to that bungalow, was incredible, so I do think the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of planning and housing. When I was Housing Minister, it was actually an area of work that I was trying to focus on; unfortunately, politics took over and I left that role, but there you go. I can assure the hon. Lady that we do talk cross-Government about many of these issues, and I will try to highlight some of the work that we are doing.
A number of Members have mentioned conversations and relationships with people from generations other than our own. I am sure that even as we get older, we all remember the advice given by our grandparents, great-aunts and great-uncles, or even the older people who lived down the road. I do not know if it is well known, but I love baking, and I learned some of my skills from people who knew how to bake really well. I have held that knowledge with me, and I look forward to being able to pass it on to the next generation.
As others have rightly mentioned, we know that a substantial number of older people suffer from chronic loneliness, which can lead to both physical and mental health strains—the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw highlighted analysis showing that it is comparable to the smoking of 16 cigarettes a day. A lot of that work has come from the US Surgeon General, who recently spoke at an event in the House of Lords. It was fascinating to listen to the medical evidence on the impact that loneliness can have on people.
Loneliness is not just a problem for older people, as hon. Members have said. We know that young people, particularly those aged between 16 and 24, are often the most likely to report feeling lonely. Evidence shows that transitions in people’s lives often bring about those loneliness moments. That is not surprising. Leaving home for the first time, going to university or starting a new job are instances where a young person can become lonely. That has been a focus of the work that we have been doing in the Department this year—trying to help young people who are going to university for the first time by engaging and interacting with them. We hope we can do some more of that work, and I will refer to that in a moment.
Bringing together the different age groups can be a great way of fostering better social connections. It is essential to building empathy, understanding the issues across the generational divide and dismantling any misplaced stereotypes. As the loneliness Minister, the idea that most resonates with me is the power of intergenerational relationships in combating social isolation and loneliness for all ages, because loneliness does not discriminate. People of all backgrounds can experience loneliness at any time of their life—I know that I have. That is why we are committed to tackling loneliness and ensuring that everyone can benefit from the power of meaningful connections, particularly the most vulnerable people in our society.
Our work to tackle loneliness is driven by the three main objectives set out in the world’s first strategy for tackling loneliness, which was published in 2018. The first is to reduce the stigma of loneliness by building a national conversation. Many people do not want to admit that they have experienced being lonely, or do not know what to do about it. To try to tackle that stigma, the national communications campaign that we run has now reached tens of millions of people since it was started in 2019. It tries to raise awareness about the issue and provides advice on what people can do to help themselves, or indeed help other people who they suspect suffer from loneliness.
The second objective is to try to drive a lasting shift so that relationships and loneliness are considered by organisations right across society. It is a complex issue that can be addressed only in partnership; the Government cannot do it alone. What makes this work so good in this country is the strong partnership with the Government. Many community and local organisations and national charities are helping us to advance that agenda. The Government and our partners have invested £80 million since 2018 on tackling this really important issue.
Last year, we launched the £30-million Know Your Neighbourhood fund to try to create volunteering opportunities to help to reduce loneliness. It supports new and existing schemes in the 27 most disadvantaged areas in the country. Last year, I had the great privilege of visiting one of the projects in Hull, where Age UK, a charity that has been mentioned by Members this afternoon, was creating volunteering opportunities for younger people to befriend older people at risk of becoming lonely. It was brilliant to see intergenerational relationships forming.
Older people who sometimes do not see people from week to week can suddenly have someone who regularly goes round to see how they are, checks on them, gets to know them and makes them feel that they are part of the community in which they live. I also loved the differences in conversations, with one person talking about tech and the other about post-war living. It was fantastic to see.
The final objective of the strategy is to improve the evidence base, which is important so that we can make a compelling case for ongoing action in this area. Our research really helped us to understand the prevalence of the stigma associated with loneliness. As I say, I am very proud to be the Minister for loneliness and to lead the work addressing such an important issue across Government. Like many hon. Members present, I want this country to be a place where we can all have strong social relationships and feel connected to the people we live around.
Global Intergenerational Week is also a good reminder that volunteering can be a great way of supporting intergenerational cohesion, much like the befriending service that I have mentioned. Stakeholders have told us that intergenerational volunteering can be a flexible form of micro-volunteering and can have a number of positive impacts. It can improve cross-generational mental health and wellbeing, and reduce age segregation, which itself can lead to a variety of issues—not just loneliness but anxiety and poor health. It also helps to foster attachment to local areas and provide positive community outcomes, such as community connectedness. We know that there is growing interest in the opportunities that intergenerational work presents, so we want to work with all the organisations that are already doing fantastic work in this area, and to learn more about the positive impacts that it can have and what more we can do to help to foster more of it.
It is also important to mention social cohesion, which we are trying to build by supporting sustainable communities. That is why we have given communities significant support to provide them with the power and resources to shape better and more connected neighbourhoods, and why we are currently delivering the new community wealth fund, which will be important. The idea behind it is to support communities to improve the social infrastructure in neighbourhoods that perhaps do not have that and therefore miss out on all the opportunities for grants and other things that may exist. It also aims to empower local people to make decisions about what they think is best for their community. I am therefore pleased to say that £87.5 million will be allocated to that fund, coming from the expansion of the dormant assets scheme.
When I think about other parts of my portfolio, there is another key way to get intergenerational connectedness happening, and that is through social prescribing. There are real opportunities there for bringing different age groups together. It helps to connect people to the community-based support, including activities and services, that meet the practical, social and emotional needs that affect their health and wellbeing. It can work well for those who are socially isolated or are experiencing low levels of mental health.
One of the themes for this year’s Global Intergenerational Week is building intergenerational workplaces, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned. We want to champion the benefits of such a multigenerational workforce and promote the importance of retaining the skills and experience that older workers have. My colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are regularly engaging with employers and employer organisations to encourage positive attitudes towards older workers, and to help some of the people who hon. Members mentioned earlier to return to work.
I know that colleagues in DWP have been working with employers that team up workers across generations. One example is a pottery manufacturer in Stoke-on-Trent with a long history of producing high quality products, where traditional methods and modern technology often work together. Of course, both older and younger workers can use the differing technologies, but clearly those with more experience of the traditional methods can pass on their expertise and experience to their colleagues who have joined more recently. I hope that we see more of that work happening in future. We are committed to delivering a comprehensive package of support to help older people to remain in and return to work, and that will include the dedicated 50-plus champions at jobcentres and mid-life MOTs.
Other Members mentioned young people. In my role as Minister with responsibility for youth in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I have been on some amazing visits around the country, and I think youth centres can help to form important relationships between generations. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned, if young people are disengaged from school—I say this with no disrespect to teachers—that relationship is often different from their relationship with their youth worker, so that mentoring is important. Our hope is to roll out programmes that do more of that, so we are embedding in young people the benefit of having relationships with people from different generations. Hopefully, they will pass that on to the younger generation as they get older.
Other Members mentioned Youth Voice. I always want to have young people around the table when we are talking about issues that affect them, not least because they do it so brilliantly and articulate it in a way that I could not, but also because, as I say to them every time, there is no point in this grey-haired, middle-aged man trying to decide what young people want today. The Youth Parliament and others are great at providing such opportunities.
I am the Sport Minister, and we have a sport strategy to get more people active. I am pleased to see that Sport England is now spending a quarter of a billion on place-based investment. I went to see one such scheme in a leisure centre in Canvey Island, where it was great to see very young people playing with footballs next to older people doing chair exercises. Getting them together was important.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has made me think about Cruyff courts. I do not know if he knows anything about them—another one is opening in Aberdeen on Monday, and I am massively excited—but in creating them, the Cruyff Foundation pays money towards a football pitch, which has to be beside a community centre or some sort of community building. That means that there is that community intervention and space, and a football pitch that can be used by anyone in the community. It is a truly brilliant initiative, so I encourage him to look at Cruyff court systems.
Stuart Andrew
That sounds really exciting. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: I am very proud of the fact that we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new sports facilities, but it is about making sure that it is not just the same people using them all the time. How do we get other generations using them? How do we get more women using them? The rise in women’s football has been amazing for us all to see, but the number of facilities that are available, or even appropriate, for women has not been good enough, and that is why we introduced the Lionesses fund. I will certainly look into the project that the hon. Lady mentioned.
This debate has been an important conversation, and I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and all Members for their contributions on an important and enlightening subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North: it is nice to see these different groups coming together. We are determined to do what we can to see more connected societies, and intergenerational approaches will be an important part of that work. I hope that we can come to realise and value the fact that intergenerational relationships build happier, healthier and more resilient communities.
Marion Fellows
There has been quality, if not quantity, in this wide-ranging debate. We have covered many different areas and I am grateful to everyone who has spoken.
I have learned more, and that is always a good thing. If anyone is watching this debate, they will learn an awful lot about how good intergenerational working is—either working in the job sense or just working together with a common aim to teach and to learn. Importantly, the Minister started by talking about his mother and how much better she was not being in an enclosed environment just for older people. That is at the heart of what we have been discussing: generations being together and being interested in what the other is doing.
It is very unusual, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) is very fortunate, to have had five generations together at one point, and I really envy her that. As the daughter of an older mother and having had children later myself, I will never see that, and I do not suppose that any of my family will, but it does not have to be family that does this work. Sometimes, it is better if it is not family. When I look at large families of different cultures, or different groups of families—on holiday, for example —the ones that are very cohesive are the ones that include all generations, which is great.
I do not have much time, so I will not dwell on this, but I will refer to the reading material that I am going to run and get: “Generations” by Bobby Duffy, which I think will be entertaining and enlightening. It benefits everyone if we talk about these things and read the evidence that the Government have gathered, which the Minister referred to, as well as the evidence in books and in general chat.
I want to thank organisations locally, as other Members already have, such as Befriend Motherwell, which is a fantastic organisation run by one of the churches. There are also other such organisations in my constituency that manage to bring together different generations who all learn from one another.
The fact that an older woman with dementia called Elspeth now asks her great-niece, who is headteacher at my Elspeth’s primary school—she is about to start in a few months’ time—is a really wonderful example of how bringing older and younger people together benefits them both.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Global Intergenerational Week 2024.
Written Statements
Service Complaints Ombudsman: Annual Report 2023
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2023 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her third year as the ombudsman.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the ombudsman will follow once that work is complete.
[HCWS452]
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd for development consent for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 megawatts, incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough industrial estate, Scunthorpe.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park application is 10 May 2024.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 18 July 2024 for deciding this application. This is to ensure there is sufficient time for the Department to consider the outcome of the piece of work being carried out by officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the role of waste incineration capacity in the management of residual wastes in England. This follows the direction issued by the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries to the Environment Agency on 4 April to temporarily pause the determination of environmental permits for new waste incineration facilities up until 24 May 2024.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS453]
Affordable Homes Guarantee Scheme 2020: Expansion
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Today, I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute setting out the details of a contingent liability that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities intends to incur under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012. By expanding the capacity of the existing affordable homes guarantee scheme 2020 from £3 billion to £6 billion, the Department increases its capacity to create contingent liabilities.
The expanded affordable homes guarantee scheme—announced at the autumn statement 2023—will continue to be delivered by ARA Venn on behalf of the Department under the oversight of Homes England. The delivery partner has been managing the scheme since 2020 and was appointed through a fair, open and competitive procurement process. Contracts for the management of the expanded scheme have now been signed with the delivery partner and the expanded scheme opened for business on 12 February 2024. In delivering the scheme, the delivery partner will raise capital from bond market investors and on-lend the proceeds to registered providers of affordable housing in England. The Department will guarantee both the principal and interest cash flows to investors.
Through the scheme the Government will continue to boost investment in providers of affordable housing and support the delivery of a significant number of new affordable homes for those whose housing needs are not currently met by the market. The expansion will support a further 4,000 new homes, bringing the total estimated number of new homes supported by the scheme to 27,000. The expansion also allows eligible spend to include upgrading existing housing stock, increasing the scope of the scheme to include retrofit, decency, and building safety. This will support registered providers to meet the decent homes standard, as well as their net zero obligations, alongside developing new homes.
This expansion sits alongside the Government’s wider set of policies to support affordable housing, including our flagship £11.5 billion affordable homes programme as well as the investment of billions of pounds in infra- structure to support the delivery of new homes since the start of this Parliament through schemes including the £4.2 billion housing infrastructure fund and the £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. Collectively, these schemes will deliver tens of thousands of new homes and unlock tens of billions of pounds in private investment.
[HCWS451]
Grand Committee
Permanent Secretaries: Appointment and Removal (Constitution Committee Report)
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Drake
To move that this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee Permanent Secretaries: their appointment and removal (17th Report, Session 2022-23, HL Paper 258).
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, between 2013 and 2020, the number of Permanent Secretaries leaving averaged 5.7 a year. In 2020, 12 Permanent Secretaries or equivalents left their posts, including the Cabinet Secretary. In September 2022, the Treasury Permanent Secretary, Sir Tom Scholar, left his post on the day the right honourable Elizabeth Truss MP became Prime Minister. This was widely reported as a sacking, in order to move economic policy away from “Treasury orthodoxy”. Simon Case confirmed that there was no question of underperformance by Sir Tom Scholar. On the same day, Sir Stephen Lovegrove was moved from the role of National Security Adviser, a move that the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, described as being “without merit”.
Since the Constitution Committee’s 2012 report, The Accountability of Civil Servants, the relationship between Ministers and civil servants had become more exposed and controversial. Recent departures raised questions about the nature of ministerial involvement in appointments and departures, and the possible desire to appoint politically sympathetic candidates. The committee decided to inquire into safeguarding the constitutional balance required on the appointment and removal of Permanent Secretaries.
The Civil Service Code sets out the role of the Civil Service as
“an integral and key part of the government of the UK”
that
“supports the government of the day in developing and implementing its policies”,
carrying this out with dedication to the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The code was put on a statutory basis by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—and those values are reflected in the Act’s minimum requirements that civil servants
“carry out their duties for the assistance of the administration as it is duly constituted for the time being, whatever its political complexion”.
The committee concluded that the impartiality and perceived impartiality of the Civil Service is a central tenet of our constitution and not seriously challenged. It recommended that any fundamental challenges must be made consciously and openly, with careful scrutiny and cross-party agreement. Under no circumstances should significant changes to the constitutional balance of the appointment and departure process for senior civil servants take place through unscrutinised evolution of practice. Can the Minister unequivocally confirm that the Government agree with those conclusions?
The CRaG Act placed the Civil Service Commission and the principles of recruitment on a statutory basis, embedding appointment on merit and after fair and open competition, and granting the Prime Minister power to manage the Civil Service. A memorandum of understanding agreed in 2010 set out the respective responsibilities of the Government and the commission, which,
“in discharging its functions, is independent of the Government and the Civil Service”.
Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, told us that the memorandum “requires updating”, and that a new framework was expected to be finalised in the coming months. When can we expect the new framework agreement to be published? Will it make clear that the CRaG Act allows the commission to assert greater independence, should it wish to, as the committee was advised by the Cabinet Secretary?
The recruitment principles published by the commission provide for ministerial involvement. In summary, Ministers can input into the job description, the person specification and the composition of the panel, and they can meet candidates. That provision is to operate in a manner that preserves the principle of merit and prevents engineering in favour of a preferred candidate. The first commissioner said:
“We give permission to appoint. It is not a duty to appoint”.
The committee concluded that that provision strikes an appropriate balance.
It was apparent, however, that Ministers were not sufficiently aware of the extent of their influence over appointments, or the limits on it. As noble Lord, Lord Maude, observed, Ministers already had
“a high degree of involvement in the appointment of permanent secretaries and directors general”,
but there was a case for more transparency. This echoed the concerns of the First Civil Service Commissioner.
It is incumbent upon Permanent Secretaries to brief incoming Ministers on how they can be involved in the appointment of civil servants, which should help to avoid some tensions. For very senior appointments, the Civil Service Senior Appointments Protocol applies. It provides for the selection route—an external or internal competition or a managed move—to be decided by the Senior Leadership Committee. The First Civil Service Commissioner and the Cabinet Secretary appeared to have different nuances as to who decides on the selection route. The Cabinet Secretary agreed to revise the protocol to reflect current working practices—in which, in our understanding, the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister decide.
We found the Senior Leadership Committee to be an opaque body; its role was described in apparently contradictory terms. We recommended that its considerations should be as transparent as possible, providing the commission with an annual account of its activities. We found the governance concerning selection routes for very senior appointments to be convoluted and unclear. The Civil Service Senior Appointments Protocol and the Recruitment Principles should both be updated to provide the necessary clarity. The Cabinet Secretary, consulting the First Civil Service Commissioner, committed to ensure that this will be done. Will the Minister update the Committee on when we can expect to see an updated protocol? What processes have been put in place to give greater transparency to the work of the Senior Leadership Committee?
Simon Case told us that discussions had taken place through the Senior Leadership Committee, the Civil Service Commission and ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—on how to make external by default recruitment work, and that proposals were imminent. We look forward to seeing the forthcoming work on the rules concerning business appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, chair of ACOBA, wrote to the committee, welcoming our work on safeguarding the constitutional balance and advising that,
“ACOBA has long argued that”
the business appointment rules
“are not fit for purpose”.
Will the Minister update the Committee on the Government’s implementation of their proposals on reforming the business appointment rules, changes to Civil Service contracts and a ministerial deed to make the business appointment rules more enforceable?
The Recruitment Principles do not apply to the Cabinet Secretary, who is appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of the retiring Cabinet Secretary and the First Civil Service Commissioner. The committee recommended that, given the importance of that role, including as head of the Civil Service, the appointment process should be made more open and transparent while maintaining that the Prime Minister make the final choice. The current and previous first commissioners share that view. It would also have the merit of strengthening Permanent Secretaries’ confidence in the management of the Civil Service.
Speculation about the role of special advisers in the appointment of senior civil servants has also impacted confidence. Alex Thomas from the Institute for Government captured the problem in his expression of concern at the idea that a special adviser such as Mr Cummings might purport to have recruited or dismissed officials. He said:
“We only have his tweets and evidence to go on … but I think that Dominic Cummings’s sense of, ‘I appointed so-and-so’, or ‘I dismissed so-and-so’, is deeply unhealthy. It obviously formally comes back to the Prime Minister and is done in the name of the Prime Minister. A reinforcement and underpinning of that important principle would not go amiss”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, the First Civil Service Commissioner, expressed her view that:
“The two absolute red lines … are, first, that Ministers cannot see candidates without the presence of a commissioner or representative of the commission; and, secondly, that special advisers must play no role in the … process … They cannot be in the room”.
The committee concluded that, although discussions between Ministers and special advisers are impossible to regulate, the decision with respect to appointments must be that of the Minister. Special advisers must not be formally involved or make public statements. What further measures are being taken to ensure that Ministers and special advisers understand that?
In the rare circumstances a Permanent Secretary is dismissed on performance or misconduct grounds, this is a human resources matter, which should follow the process of performance and misconduct management outlined by the Cabinet Office. Problems arise if ministerial conduct appears to undermine that due process. Confidence in the departure process requires careful scrutiny. The committee recommended that the Civil Service Commission should play a role in the dismissal or departure of senior civil servants on performance or conduct grounds by ensuring that due process is followed.
Recent removals on what appear to be political or ideological grounds might indicate insufficient procedural safeguards around departures. We recognise that a Permanent Secretary has to foster a positive relationship with the Secretary of State. However, forming a positive relationship is a two-way process. Incoming Ministers should allow Permanent Secretaries time to establish a productive relationship before seeking their removal.
The committee concluded that there is a case for formalising the departure process in situations where there is no issue of performance or misconduct. It recommended that the process should be set out in writing, requiring Ministers and the Prime Minister to explain to the Civil Service Commission—in private if necessary—their decision to remove a senior civil servant. A written record of the decision and the reasons for it should be kept. These processes would need to be sufficiently flexible to allow a Minister to replace at short notice where a working relationship has broken down.
The critical point about the departures of Sir Tom Scholar and Sir Stephen Lovegrove was the extremely short timeframe in which the decisions were enacted. It conveys that no meaningful process could have possibly been followed. Some recent high-profile removals have been conducted in the public eye and might be seen to reflect a desire on the part of Ministers to personalise appointments and assert their authority.
Some witnesses were of the view that in recent years Ministers have been more willing to make a public statement by dispensing with the services of a civil servant. Such behaviour risks senior Civil Service turnover coinciding with ministerial churn, reinforcing the perception of politicisation, damaging institutional knowledge—we probably saw this acutely in the case of Sir Tom Scholar—and weakening the governance of the country. What steps are the Government taking to mitigate the potentially chilling effects on civil servants of the perception that recent high-profile removals of Permanent Secretaries lacked merit or due process, or were driven by personalisation or political grounds?
There was also concern that high-profile removals of senior civil servants could lead to officials hedging their advice. This is particularly pertinent to Permanent Secretaries’ role as accounting officers, with a duty to
“assure Parliament and the public of high standards of probity in the management of public funds”.
They routinely scrutinise proposed government policy against the criteria of probity, propriety, value for money and feasibility. The accounting officer function is a valuable aspect of the constitution, relying on speaking truth to power. A shift towards ministerial patronage risks a chilling effect, to the detriment of the public interest.
I turn to the issue of devolved Administrations. For Permanent Secretaries and their equivalents who are accountable to the Scottish or Welsh Government but who belong to the UK Civil Service organisation, there is potential for confusion about the boundary between devolved competence and reserved matters. The most pertinent recent example was the First Minister of Scotland’s decision in March 2023 to appoint a Minister for Independence. Simon Case agreed that
“it would be ‘unusual and a bit worrying’ if civil servants in Scotland were supporting an effort to ‘break up the United Kingdom’ and provided assurances that he was examining this issue to determine whether ‘further guidance and clarification’ should be issued to civil servants ‘about what is and is not appropriate spending’”.
The committee was concerned about this point—indeed, it still is. It concluded that
“it is important that the principle of a single civil service across England, Wales and Scotland is maintained”.
It said that the Cabinet Secretary must
“manage challenges as they arise”
and provide clarity that senior
“civil servants … should work and spend public funds exclusively on matters within devolved competence”.
When will further guidance and clarification be issued to senior civil servants in Scotland and Wales? What guidance is given to Permanent Secretaries in Scotland and Wales on seeking a written direction from the relevant devolved Minister?
I conclude where I opened, with the committee’s conclusion:
“Under no circumstances should significant changes to the constitutional balance of the appointment and departure processes for civil servants take place through unscrutinised evolution of practice”.
I beg to move.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, not that many people are deeply interested in this subject—in essence, we are all in the Room—but, for some of us, this is a subject of deep concern and is hugely important. I very much welcome the Constitution Committee’s thorough, balanced and thoughtful report.
This subject is gaining more interest outside. It is interesting that today the Institute for Government has published yet another report that bears strongly on this subject. It is robust and pretty punchy and it supports a lot of concerns that many of us have felt for a little time. It was a pleasure to be invited to give evidence to the Constitution Committee; it was yet another stage in my therapy and I am grateful for that opportunity.
I want to make some general points. First, I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about opacity—that is, the opaqueness of this process— and the lack of scrutiny over internal appointments in the Civil Service. This is a matter of deep frustration for Ministers, who often see appointments being made for posts that are very important for the work that they are charged with delivering yet they have little visibility, let alone influence, on how the appointment is made. When I was doing my review, which I found a fascinating process, I discovered, buried deep in the Civil Service Management Code, these words:
“Ministers … will have a legitimate interest in a small number of posts”.
I found that extraordinary. As a Minister, I felt that I had a legitimate interest in every single post in the department for which I was responsible. I might want to exercise that interest and influence over only a relatively small number, but the idea that Ministers have a legitimate interest in only a small number is quite offensive. That needs to be revised.
There is no effective scrutiny from outside of internal appointments. That is needed. A body that has already been set up is capable of being developed into such a body: the Civil Service Commission, whose role can be expanded by agreement with the Prime Minister and the Civil Service Commissioner. At the moment, it is not set up to do that. As the report makes clear, its independence is somewhat truncated because all its staff are themselves civil servants.
I pay huge tribute to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, has done as the First Civil Service Commissioner. It is interesting that she is the first former Minister to sit as a Civil Service Commissioner, yet that ministerial perspective is important when you are looking at the appointment of very senior civil servants. In my recommendation, there should always be two former Ministers, one from each of the major parties, on the Civil Service Commission—partly to ensure that there is no politicisation, in the sense of people who would not be acceptable to an incoming Government of a different colour being appointed to key posts, but also to bring that ministerial perspective to judgments. Reference has been made to the strange and uncertain role of the Senior Leadership Committee, which needs to be brought into the daylight.
Then there is this question of merit. I have no problem with appointments being made on merit. Why would any Minister want a key official who is charged with delivering their agenda not to be of high merit? But who is to be the judge of merit? There is no objective test for it; these are human judgments being made by human beings about other human beings. There is absolutely no reason why Ministers should not be able to be part of judging the merit of particular appointments, as they already are for Permanent Secretaries and directors-general, and to be given a choice of appointable candidates of sufficient merit for roles that they consider critical for the discharge of their responsibilities. If this were to happen, it would likely reduce the amount of blame that tends to get attached; if Ministers have more involvement in the appointment of civil servants, they will have less justification for criticising them when things go wrong.
One reason why things sometimes go wrong is that civil servants in very senior roles, including Permanent Secretaries in charge of big delivery departments— the IfG’s report today makes this clear—are predominantly drawn from the policy side of the Civil Service and are, frankly, woefully underprepared for taking on these huge responsibilities. My hopeful attempts to introduce a much higher degree of training for these big roles ran into the sand. For reasons which no one has ever explained, what we agreed should be done—putting Permanent Secretaries and aspirant Permanent Secretaries through top leadership courses in top business schools—just did not happen.
Ministers need to be able to be more involved in more appointments and should have more visibility. I do not understand why it is said that there cannot be a role for special advisers in observing the selection process—not being involved in it or influencing it, as the law is quite clear that they must not be involved in management. Them having some ability to see what is happening, and to throw some light on these very mysterious and opaque processes, would be very valuable. Nothing in law or good practice prevents that.
The IfG report makes the point that the pay of senior civil servants has fallen. It should be higher and we should have a smaller Civil Service with better pay, particularly for senior officials and Ministers—I can say this because my ministerial career is now, happily, well behind me. It is not appropriate that Ministers, who carry all the responsibility and accountability for what is done by their department, are served by officials who in many cases are paid more than them. It is very difficult, but it should be dealt with. Ministerial pay has fallen far further behind than civil servants’ pay.
There have always been Permanent Secretaries being removed. Fixed terms have not particularly increased this, as they can be extended—and generally should be—for less than the five years. When civil servants leave because there has been a failure in the relationship, we should be unequivocal and unembarrassed about paying up. When there is a failure, it is often not a personal failure of the individual—maybe it was the wrong appointment or, as I have said, they were insufficiently prepared. We should take responsibility for that and ensure that they are properly paid. The idea that you cannot reward failure is pandering to media concerns. We should be much more grown-up about this and accept that sometimes these things happen. There should be proper process. It should be unusual, but when it happens you should pay up and accept that there is a general responsibility for it having happened.
I strongly commend the report of the Constitution Committee, which is a very worthwhile piece of work.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I have the privilege of serving on the Constitution Committee under the excellent and careful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and I commend her on what she has said. It is a privilege also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maude, with his great experience, which I am afraid I do not have.
In April 2022, Sir Matthew Rycroft, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, wrote a letter to the then Home Secretary requesting a ministerial direction in relation to the Government’s Rwanda policy. He said that although he was satisfied that it was regular, proper and feasible for the policy to proceed, he could not quantify its effectiveness as a deterrent to the small boats phenomenon with sufficient certainty to provide him with the necessary level of assurance over value for money. As we know, the ministerial direction was given and the policy proceeded. The responsibility for ensuing expenditure rests firmly with the Government and cannot be blamed on civil servants. I always take comfort from my Welsh family motto, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will appreciate, “Ar bwy mae’r bae?”—“Who can we blame?”
That episode was an example of a Permanent Secretary doing his job. His message was no doubt unwelcome to his political mistress in a very sensitive area of government policy, but Sir Matthew is still in his job. By contrast, Sir Tom Scholar was removed from his position as Permanent Secretary in the Treasury in September 2022 by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, not for anything that he had done but because he represented “Treasury orthodoxy”. That was a highly political decision. I do not think we realised at the time that there was a “deep state” bent on ruining the ministry of Liz Truss in her short-lived tenancy of No. 10.
That was not the only threat to stability. We had observed under Boris Johnson the rule of the spad, Dominic Cummings, who claimed that he had appointed personally the Cabinet Secretary. As for another senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office, he wrote in an email:
“I will personally handcuff her and escort her from the building. I don’t care how it is done, but that woman must be out of our hair”—
I shall leave out the embellishments that he gave to that message.
It is clear that, in recent times, successive Governments have pushed the fuzzy boundaries of our unwritten constitution. The ballot box does not convey unbridled power to election winners. The sovereignty of Parliament, important as it is as a principle, is subject, as Winston Churchill wrote in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, to the rule of law. That includes international law. The judiciary is independent. Another principle of our constitution over the years is an apolitical Civil Service which does not
depend on political patronage. We can see the origins of this in Samuel Pepys’s time, the 17th century. It was written of him by a contemporary that he introduced
“The principal rules and establishments in present use”
in the offices of the Admiralty, and that he demanded
“Sobriety, diligence, capacity, loyalty, and subjection to command”.
Where any of those virtues were found wanting,
“no interest or authority was capable of moving him in favour of the highest pretender”.
The Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854 enshrines, as our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, put it in 1999 in his Founder’s Day address at Hawarden Castle, the home of Mr Gladstone, the
“core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer … loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.
Those are the core principles.
Recent shenanigans seem to be a threat and an affront to these principles. The essential challenge with which the Constitution Committee sought to grapple was whether in the modern era Ministers should be able to choose their own teams of civil servants, those with whom they felt comfortable. I detected some of that wish in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maude. In America, the spoils system of patronage in relation to the civil service was abolished in the 19th century, but since Secretaries of State are appointed directly by the President and do not have to be Members of Congress, their immediate executive staff are deemed to be outside the American civil service, and they of course change with the Administration.
The Constitution Committee in this report reaffirmed that the current recruitment principles strike the correct balance in maintaining an objective, merit-based approach to recruitment, particularly for Permanent Secretaries. Any move towards greater ministerial involvement would risk upsetting that balance. We held that it is unhelpful for Ministers to seek to personalise appointments and assert their authority because, among other things, it risks Civil Service turnover coinciding with ministerial churn. It creates a perception of politicisation of appointments and damages institutional knowledge. Political alignment should never be a factor. We also called for departure processes to be formalised to guard against the improper removal of civil servants. In particular, we urged that Ministers should be required to explain any decision to replace a senior civil servant to the Civil Service Commission, and called for more transparency about the role of the Senior Leadership Committee, which we termed an opaque body—a word that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has taken up.
In their response, the Government said that they shared the committee’s belief that the impartiality and perceived impartiality of the Civil Service is a central tenet of our constitution. The Government also accepted that broad political alignment should not be a relevant consideration in the appointment of civil servants. The one area which was disappointing in their response was the Government’s reaction to our desire to ensure due process when senior civil servants are dismissed on conduct or performance criteria. We called for the intervention of the Civil Service Commissioner, but the Government’s view was that formal human resources processes already exist around performance management, conduct and discipline issues.
I am hopeful that the rot has been stopped. The continuance of Sir Matthew Rycroft in office, despite his warnings over the Rwanda policy, is encouraging. Ahead of us, we have the prospect of a change of Government, and we shall follow with interest how well the loyalty and expertise of the Civil Service, and particularly its Permanent Secretaries, translate into a new environment.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this thoughtful report. I am grateful to the committee for having asked the Civil Service Commission to give evidence to it. As the First Civil Service Commissioner, I lead the statutory independent commission that provides assurance that appointment into the Civil Service is on merit, after fair and open competition. I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, about how we define merit. The commission regulates recruitment into the Civil Service and hears appeals from civil servants under the Civil Service Code. We play a unique role in the recruitment landscape and bring external expertise, acting as one of the checks and balances to the Government. We also provide confidence that recruitment is driven by candidates’ ability to do the job, wherever they may come from.
In my role as the First Civil Service Commissioner, I chair the recruitment panels for the appointment of Permanent Secretaries. The unique arrangements for this are set out in our Recruitment Principles. Throughout the appointments process, we attach great importance to Ministers being involved at the outset and through the various stages. Ministers must give their views on the job specification and person specification, and agree on the panel. They can meet all the shortlisted candidates, with the commission present, to give their views. However, the decision on which candidates meet the criteria rests with the independent panel, and the final choice of whom to appoint as a Permanent Secretary is for the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that, for other competitions for lower senior Civil Service grades, the panel not only arrives at a conclusion as to who is appointable but produces a merit order of those appointable candidates.
We agree with the committee that this balance of involvement is about right but that more must be done to make sure Ministers are aware of the ways in which they can be appropriately and rightly involved in these appointments. These are the most important public service leadership roles in the country. As a result of appearing before the committee and the concerns raised, the Deputy Prime Minister and I wrote to all Permanent Secretaries and ministerial offices in April this year outlining the existing process, and as a reminder that there is clarity on where Ministers could and should be appropriately involved.
We are proud of our permanent Civil Service in this country, which exists to serve the Government of the day. I like to think that what we have is an impartial Civil Service. I have my doubts whether such a thing as it being non-political—with a small “p”—is possible, but it is impartiality and a commitment to the Government of the day which are important.
An effective Civil Service must continue to develop its own people, as well as recruit new talent from outside to bring in new skills. The commission plays a significant part here. We regulate external appointments into the Civil Service and, by virtue of the senior appointments protocol, recruitment at director-general level, which is the level below Permanent Secretary. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to publication of a revised Civil Servants Senior Appointments Protocol in the near future. The independence of the commission is a critical part of how the most senior roles in the Civil Service are recruited on merit, following that open and fair competition.
I also sit on the Senior Leadership Committee in my role as the First Civil Service Commissioner. I agree with the committee that it is important to codify and clarify the remit of the SLC and the first commissioner’s role on it. I am pleased that this work is under way, and look forward to its publication shortly. I also believe that the SLC membership should always include the Government lead NED as a further source of external cross-government expertise.
We believe that there are major benefits to external recruitment, testing the market for the skills the Civil Service needs and refreshing the talent available to serve the country. The commission itself has seen the benefits of recruiting externally by default, but some departments would benefit from embracing “external by default” a bit more enthusiastically.
I share with the Committee that the commission will be carrying out a thematic review into the rigour with which the external by default policy is applied, and we are doing this with the agreement of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. This will be a root-and-branch review, intended to look at the premise of external by default, how it is currently delivered and where there are still opportunities to be realised by recruiting people from outside into the Civil Service. We will be working closely with the Government People Group, which is responsible for Civil Service HR. I believe this is an excellent way to use the unique regulatory perspective of the commission and our 14 commissioners, who come from a wide range of professional backgrounds, including the private sector and the wider public sector.
The commission is currently responsible for entry into the Civil Service. Under the existing arrangements, we play no part in exit. I am pleased that our secretariat also serves the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The commission welcomes the work under way by the Government and the noble Lord on reforms to the business appointment rules. If there are implications for the commission’s own regulatory work, we will respond to those.
The commission is the appellate body for complaints from civil servants under the Civil Service Code. The code itself is owned by the Cabinet Office. We take this role seriously. Now that the full results of the people survey are available to us, we have written to all Permanent Secretaries in Scotland, Wales and England in order to engage in outreach with their departments over the coming year. We will ask each department for a list of the department’s nominated officers, details on the number of code complaints that the department has received, and the number of code complaints that have been upheld by the department. We are keen to ensure that civil servants understand the provisions of the code and are aware of the ways in which they can make a complaint, and that adequate processes are in place within departments.
I wish to take this moment to place on record my thanks to the hard-working commissioners and staff of the commission, who have in the past year regulated more than 90,000 appointments into the Civil Service and chaired 229 senior Civil Service competitions. I thank the committee for having been the spark for two useful commission initiatives and for giving us the impetus to do them in a timely manner.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, who brings a unique perspective on this subject. I am grateful to the committee for its report and to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her thoughtful introduction to the debate.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Maude said, I hesitated before putting my name down for this debate—because I was not on the committee, I am not a former Cabinet Secretary, I am not the First Civil Service Commissioner, I am not a Front-Bench spokesman, I have never been involved with Civil Service reform and I am not a professor of government. However, during a career with a number of discontinuities, I served with 12 different Permanent Secretaries, all of whom were of the highest calibre. In a sense, that should not be a matter of good fortune, because you do not become a Permanent Secretary unless on the way up you have had good working relationships with a range of Ministers and other colleagues. I had much more trouble with spads than with Permanent Secretaries.
What concerns me is the trend over the last 30 years increasingly to politicise the Civil Service and to compromise its independence. Both parties—indeed, all three of the main parties—have been complicit in this. That should not be confused with attempts to modernise the Civil Service or strengthen it by bringing in people from outside to reinforce subjects where it may lack the necessary skills. I hope that, at some point, we might debate my noble friend Lord Maude’s excellent Independent Review of Governance and Accountability in the Civil Service, which aims to remove some of the tensions in the system that we have been talking about and to improve the outcomes.
What prompted this inquiry was the dismissal of Sir Tom Scholar from the Treasury, but this was the culmination of a trend that has been going on for some time under both Governments. I go back to 1997, when for the first time Orders in Council gave political aides powers to direct civil servants—powers normally reserved to Ministers. More information on what happened in the Blair Government can be found in Ian Beesley’s book, The Official History of the Cabinet Secretaries. For example, he tells us that Wilson—then Sir Richard, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—wrote to Blair:
“Do not try to use the policy unit to run the government; do not attempt to divorce permanent secretaries from their Cabinet ministers; do not be tempted by Napoleonic models, shifting resources ... from the Cabinet Office to No 10”.
Robert Armstrong was quoted in the Spectator in February 2002 as having said this:
“I am worried about the politicisation of the civil service. It is a particular problem in Downing Street”.
Dominic Lawson, perhaps a more partial commentator, wrote in February 2006:
“So the heads of our Civil Service departments do nothing to restrain Mr Blair and his colleagues from one hare-brained ‘eye-catching initiative’ after another. They have become merely a conveyor belt for political whims, having ceased to be public servants in the truest sense”.
We also saw the use of the government information service as a political weapon, a practice followed by the coalition and Conservative Governments, who gave sympathetic newspapers exclusive previews, frequently sidelining the clear guidance in the Cabinet Manual that:
“When Parliament is in session the most important announcements of government policy should, in the first instance, be made to Parliament”.
More recently, this Government have not had an unblemished record, with the controversial departures of Jonathan Slater at the DfE, Philip Rutnam at the Home Office, and the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, mentioned, the arrival of Dominic Cummings poisoned this particular well; he made it clear that he had no time for Permanent Secretaries, and civil servants will remember his “hard rain” speech.
However, to my mind, the summary dismissal of Tom Scholar was an infringement of a totally different order: a direct challenge to the independence of the Civil Service and to the principle that Ministers cannot sack civil servants—we are not their employer. No specific reason was ever given for his departure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, we know from the Cabinet Secretary that there was no question of poor performance, and we know from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that it was not about political views. He said:
“I have worked with Tom for about 25 years, and to this day I have no idea what his political views are”.
The statement by the then Chancellor sheds no light at all. His bland statement ended,
“he leaves the Civil Service with the highest distinction”.
Tom Scholar himself said:
“The Chancellor decided it was time for new leadership at the Treasury, and so I will be leaving with immediate effect”.
But the new leadership at the Treasury was Kwasi Kwarteng. If he wanted to change the direction of economic policy, that is the one thing at which the Civil Service excels—and on which it may shortly be tested again if it has to alter policy to reflect a new Administration.
When questions were asked as to what had happened, the then Exchequer Secretary said in an Answer to a PQ:
“It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters”.
There may have been good reasons why the committee did not get oral or written evidence from either Tom Scholar or indeed the then Chancellor, so we may never know what happened.
The Times came to its own conclusion, publishing on 14 September 2022 a letter that read:
“The sad fact is that in sacking Sir Tom Scholar, one of the ablest civil servants of his generation, the prime minister and chancellor have sent a clear message to the civil service that they are not interested in impartial advice and intend to surround themselves with ‘yes’ men and women. That is a sure route to bad decision-making and weak government. It is also another small step on the road to politicising the civil service”.
The Financial Times went a bit further. It said:
“Truss had pledged war against so-called Treasury orthodoxy and ‘abacus economics’, of which Scholar was a totem after six years at the head of the department”.
Against that background, I wonder whether the conclusions of the committee were robust enough. In paragraph 131 it concluded:
“Under no circumstances should civil servants be dismissed on purely political or ideological grounds”.
But that is exactly what happened. On page 5 it concluded:
“We do not consider the small number of recent high-profile removals of senior civil servants on what appeared to be political or ideological grounds to amount to a trend”.
I hope that it is right, but we need to build in better safeguards than we have at the moment, as the committee recognised.
In conclusion, I am always interested in what my noble friend the Minister has to say, but at this point in the electoral cycle, I will also pay particular attention to what the Opposition spokesperson says.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the appointment and dismissal of Permanent Secretaries and declare my interest as a member of the Constitution Committee and a former special adviser. I thank the clerks, my fellow committee members and especially the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for their careful navigation of this sensitive terrain—and for putting up with me. I also thank the witnesses who appeared before us and helped illuminate such a nuanced subject.
The appointment and dismissal of Permanent Secretaries are two of the most important powers exercised by a Prime Minister. Although it was considered heretical 15 years ago, today a Prime Minister exercising choice in the selection of Permanent Secretaries is widely accepted and formally codified in the Civil Service recruitment principles. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Maude for his tenacity in ensuring that this happened.
The power to dismiss, however, has not enjoyed the same degree of acceptance, for entirely understandable reasons. We can, no doubt, all recall instances where the dismissal of a Permanent Secretary may or may not have been justified. Some have been retired early, having openly revealed their private opposition to government policy, while others have been summarily dismissed on the basis of ministerial aversion to their supposedly orthodox views. In each case, the dismissal has been heavily debated. It is to be regretted that the United Kingdom does not, as in other jurisdictions, have any clear policies setting out the role of Ministers in the potential dismissal of Permanent Secretaries.
The Civil Service has since 2010 been underpinned by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, or CRaG. It makes clear that all competitions for appointments to the Civil Service should be on the basis of merit, following a fair and open competition, and regulated by the independent Civil Service Commission. The Act, however, has its deficiencies. Although it formally provides for an independent commission, the commission is entirely dependent for its staffing, premises and budget on the Cabinet Office and its chief executive is line managed by the propriety and ethics directorate within the Cabinet Office, which in turn reports directly to the Cabinet Secretary.
The Act is also almost unique in the developed world in placing no direct controls on the promotion of existing civil servants through purely internal mechanisms. An internal exercise all but guarantees the selection of an existing civil servant and deprives, in most circumstances, the Civil Service Commission of its oversight function. I acknowledge the work of the Secretary of State at Defra, who, in his previous role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, put in place a mechanism to ensure that all Civil Service vacancies had to be advertised externally by default, unless otherwise agreed by Ministers. It is telling that, according to the IfG report published today, only 22% of Permanent Secretaries have had experience in a leadership role outside government for more than three years.
To avoid the risk of the very highest positions being gifted through patronage, additional controls have been placed on the internal promotion of candidates to director-general and Permanent Secretary roles. This has been done through the statutory document known as the Civil Service Senior Appointments Protocol. It states that decisions on whether these posts will be advertised externally are reserved to a body called the Senior Leadership Committee and that all such vacancies shall be overseen by the Civil Service Commission, regardless of how they are advertised.
As we have heard, our committee found that the composition, role and influence of the Senior Leadership Committee were highly opaque matters. While the SLC includes the First Civil Service Commissioner and, I believe, the government lead non-executive director, its membership is still dominated by Permanent Secretaries. A more balanced composition, with clear ministerial accountability, would surely help ease some of the anxieties that exist around this committee.
Despite the protocol being a statutory policy issued under CRaG, we learned in evidence from the Cabinet Secretary that decisions on whether to advertise Permanent Secretary vacancies externally are apparently taken not by the Senior Leadership Committee but, in reality, bilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary and the First Civil Service Commissioner. That places us in the slightly anomalous position where law and administrative practice are at variance. The commitment from both the Cabinet Secretary and the First Civil Service Commissioner to update the senior appointments protocol is therefore welcome, although it is important to note that the power to vary that protocol is reserved by Section 17 of the Act to the Prime Minister, not the Cabinet Secretary.
I will end with a word about the role of special advisers in the appointments process. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act expressly forbids special advisers authorising the expenditure of public money and exercising any management power in relation to the Civil Service. It does not, however, forbid their advising Ministers on either of those matters, which is an important distinction that, I think, our report fairly reflects.
There are many more points that I would like to make, but time does not allow. I therefore echo the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in asking my noble friend the Minister when we can expect the updated protocol and the published terms and membership of the Senior Leadership Committee on GOV.UK.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, today’s debate has been given a new topicality by two reports. One was the report of the Institute for Government, which has been referred to, and the other, which has not been referred to, is a report in the Times of a speech by Mr John Glen, a Cabinet Office Minister, in which he is reported as saying that the Government are to introduce new rules for managers to deal with underperforming staff. It is now 25 years since I retired from the Civil Service, so I am not competent to give an informed commentary on the performance of today’s service. I want to concentrate my remarks on the constitutional implications of Mr Glen’s reported remarks on today’s subject of the appointment and dismissal of Permanent Secretaries.
We must start by recognising that, like the armed services and judges, the Civil Service and elected politicians are separate professions, both serving the Crown. Civil servants and Ministers should form a unity in working for the country under the leadership of Ministers, who have earned that right to lead by virtue of their election. However, the two professions are separate, and the obligations that they have differ in some respects. On the one hand, Ministers have a right to be served by people in whom they have confidence and they have a right, therefore, to have a strong voice in appointment, but the head of the Civil Service also has a responsibility to build for the future an impartial Civil Service competent to serve Governments of different colours, and my noble friend the First Civil Service Commissioner has a duty to preside over a process that reconciles these two obligations. I was pleased to see that the Constitution Committee concludes that the recruitment principles formulated by the Civil Service Commission strike a good balance in reconciling these two sets of interests.
I now turn to the removal of Permanent Secretaries. Although a Minister has a right to be served by a Permanent Secretary in whom he has confidence, he does not have the right to dismiss a Permanent Secretary. That is why Kwasi Kwarteng’s dismissal of Sir Tom Scholar was constitutionally wrong. If Mr Kwarteng and the Prime Minister wanted to remove Sir Tom Scholar, it was a matter for the head of the Civil Service. He should have handled it, not politicians. A Permanent Secretary, or indeed any official, is an employee of the Crown, not of the party in power.
It is timely to be discussing this now as we approach a general election. I remember that when senior appointments had to be made during a period leading up to an election, I, as head of the Civil Service, was authorised by the Prime Minister to sound out the leader of the Opposition, not to give him a veto but to ensure that the planned appointee would be acceptable if there was a change of Government. I never encountered any difficulty about this, and I hope that, if necessary, that is happening today.
We can take some encouragement from the fact that, under Mr Sunak’s regime, the instability among Permanent Secretaries appears to have diminished and from the fact that the Government have accepted all the main recommendations of the Constitution Committee. Like others, I warmly congratulate the committee on its report. We can also be, at this moment, further encouraged by both the leader of the Opposition and his chief of staff knowing the Civil Service from the inside. I therefore have confidence that the conclusions and recommendations of the Constitution Committee in support of an impartial and politically independent Civil Service will be respected by any new Administration. I want to see deficiencies in the performance of the Civil Service put right but, in my view, this can be done only by good and respectful leadership on the part of the Civil Service and Ministers, not by imposed regulation of the sort threatened by Mr Glen.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, like others, I very much welcome this report from the Constitution Committee and the generally positive response it received from the Government. My purpose in speaking is, essentially, to add to what the committee recommends. There are three points I wish to make, picking up in part on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Maude and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell.
My first point addresses what is implicit in the report but not dealt with in a dedicated section. It is the bit in the middle between recruitment and removal—that is, retention. The report recognises that, for the purpose of having a well-functioning department, it is necessary that highly qualified individuals are recruited on merit as Permanent Secretaries. It is necessary but not sufficient. The value is lost if there is a significant turnover in senior civil servants.
The report notes the churn in Permanent Secretaries in the period from 2019 to 2023. To refer to them as “permanent” appears a misnomer. Even before that, the length of service was not substantial. The extent of turnover is also shown in the report Who Runs Whitehall?, published today by the Institute for Government, to which reference has already been made. This turnover is not conducive to good government. Ministers are generalists, but so too are most senior civil servants. The value added by having Permanent Secretaries who know their department and have an institutional memory is lost if their tenure is not much greater, or indeed shorter, than that of Ministers. As the IfG report argues:
“Senior officials should be better incentivised to stay in post longer”.
To my mind, that entails not only the conditions of service but a culture of appreciating the work that they do. Good government relies on Ministers who can take decisions but respect the role of the senior civil servants, and civil servants who can, in the words of my noble friend, Lord Maude, in his independent review,
“give honest, questioning and challenging advice to ministers”,
ultimately accepting the outcome once a Minister has taken a view.
When I did research in the 1990s on the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, I found that senior Ministers viewed their officials in a positive light. There was a culture of mutual respect, which, as this report recognises, has in recent years been eroded. We need to bolster that culture. As is clear from the committee’s report, it is a question of attitudes, not formal relationships and processes. Too often, Ministers are critical of officials, often, it appears, because the Ministers lack confidence—in one or two cases it is the opposite, and they display overweening self-confidence—and have no ingrained understanding of the role of the senior Civil Service.
How, then, do we encourage mutual respect and trust, derived from a mature understanding of the respective roles of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries? The answer is, at least in part, to be found in my second point, which is the need, already touched on today by my noble friend Lord Maude, for Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and other senior civil servants, to be trained in key leadership skills.
As my noble friend Lord Maude said in his review:
“The organisational health of the Civil Service is overwhelmingly dependent on its people: who they are, and how they are appointed and managed”.
Permanent Secretaries need to be leaders and not just managers. The same applies to Ministers. Leadership encompasses taking people with you and ensuring that they feel part of a team, rather than employees who are told what to do. Yet, as the IfG report shows, and as has been mentioned, few senior officials have prior experience in a leadership role.
I initiated a debate in the House in 2021 making the case for training. In it, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, drawing on her experience in business, endorsed the argument, noting that training helps senior managers get the best out of their staff. She also agreed that training should be provided to those who need it and not simply to those who want it. Training is essential to ensure that we get the best out of Permanent Secretaries and that Permanent Secretaries get the best out of those who serve in their departments. The same applies to Ministers, so perhaps my noble friend can update us on progress.
Thirdly and related—a point I have pursued on a number of occasions, including in the 2021 debate—civil servants need to appreciate the significance of Parliament. The report refers to Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act but makes no mention of subsection (6), which requires the Minister for the Civil Service to
“have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and … Government”.
It is crucial that Permanent Secretaries—and Ministers —do not see Parliament as either irrelevant or an unfortunate irritant. Good government needs an effective Parliament. Although the provision in subsection (6) forms part of the Civil Service Code, it is by no means clear to what extent it is applied in practice. In the context of the committee’s report, it would be valuable if those considered for appointment as Permanent Secretaries had to demonstrate not only their awareness of the provision but what they had done in their previous posts to ensure that it had been applied. I do not expect my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to be able to address the point in detail this afternoon, but it would be good to hear from her in writing what progress has been made in ensuring the clear and measurable application of the provision.
We need to ensure that Ministers and Permanent Secretaries know how to work together to lead cohesive and goal-oriented departments. This report is an important contribution to ensuring that we get the most out of those who head government departments. Its success will be demonstrated if the recommendation at paragraph 131 is implemented but never required.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this small gathering of experts interested in this subject brings back for me happy memories of standing in the office of Mr Maude, as he then was, with his special adviser, as she then was, arguing about the future of the Civil Service and waiting for Permanent Secretaries to come in and argue with us, in what, the current Prime Minister tells us, was the chaotic situation of the coalition Government—which has been succeeded since then by the sound, single-party Government that we now have.
Of course, we are talking about the exceptional circumstances of the past five to seven years, with the astonishing turnover of Prime Ministers—two of whom, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, behaved in an extraordinary way—and part of our question is how far we can regard that, in retrospect, as an exceptional circumstance that will not recur or as something which we have to respond to and build future defences against. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us that sofa government under the Blair Administration had some characteristics that were not dissimilar; some of us go back as far as Margaret Thatcher’s constant questioning—“Is he one of us?”—in relation to civil servants as well as others. So this is not entirely new and I am not sure that we want to go all the way back to the period when Crossman, as some will remember, had a Permanent Secretary with whom he absolutely could not get on but with whom he was stuck and who was a powerful personality herself. We have to adapt to change to some circumstances.
Clearly, the situation under Liz Truss and Boris Johnson was exceptional. The war on experts, or “the blob”—Michael Gove clearly regarded most of the Civil Service, as well as the BBC, universities, journalism and various other things as part of the dreadful blob to be killed—biased the debate about the role of the Civil Service.
I note that, in paragraph 124 of the report, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, is quoted as saying that, under the Truss Government,
“you had to tell them what they wanted to hear”.
I recall a civil servant telling me that, when Liz Truss was the head of his department, you were told that you were supposed to give her only the good news when you went into a ministerial meeting. They said that senior civil servants who might be responsible for what was being discussed were excluded if they provided opinions on what was being said that were too critical. Clearly, that is also exceptional.
We know that Dominic Cummings behaved as no special adviser should ever behave. I have been told that, on occasion, he would summon senior civil servants from other departments to see him, without informing their Secretary of State or their private office.
We have to hope that all of that exceptional behaviour is now in the past, but we must recognise that we face longer-term problems of constant short-term policy-making, failure to sustain major projects over a long period, and failures of strategic planning or foresight. We also have to recognise that those come, perhaps, from deeper and shared weaknesses among the Civil Service, Ministers and Parliament. In that case, we would have a much broader agenda for constitutional reform, which we cannot debate now.
We have to recognise that the rate of ministerial churn has been as much of a problem as that of Civil Service churn. I recall another civil servant telling me that, in three years in one post, she had four Secretaries of State and three Ministers of State. That makes constant changes of policy rather difficult to cope with. The relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service has to be based on respect for evidence and on the constructive tension that follows from those who talk about the evidence and the problems of implementation and those who talk about their preferences and their desirability to change the way in which things are done.
This raises questions about the role of Ministers—again, they are perhaps questions for another Constitution Committee inquiry—and whether Ministers also need rather more training than they receive, and whether changes of government ought to take place not over three days but over at least two weeks, to give some chance for parliamentarians, who in many cases have no previous ministerial experience, to learn a bit about what they are taking on, how to treat the Civil Service, how to run Whitehall and so on.
I should say this about ministerial roles. I used to work at Chatham House, in the 1980s, and therefore worked closely with the Foreign Office. I recall the devotion with which senior and junior officials in the Foreign Office talked about their Secretary of State, Geoffrey Howe, and the sheer sadness that so many of them expressed when he left. Relations between Ministers and officials can be close and can be very much a matter of mutual respect. We have lost that in too many cases recently; that is as much a matter of the deterioration of our politics as of our Administration, I am afraid.
If we want to get really good Permanent Secretaries and maintain them, we have to recognise that, as the report suggests, the complexities of Permanent Secretaries’ roles make previous experience of the Civil Service highly desirable. That also suggests that, if you want a broader range of experience, career paths that go in and out of the Civil Service are highly desirable. I like the suggestion that there should be a stronger alumni network for those who have Civil Service experience and have gone out; I think that that is mentioned in the Institute for Government’s report, which a number of us have clearly already read.
We certainly need to do more training for senior officials. I used to teach the top management course—which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Maude, abolished, although I am not sure about that. I recall meeting civil servants who had been sent to INSEAD, and I think the idea of sending civil servants off to courses such as that is highly desirable. Those are all things which we hope a new Government will wish to take on board.
We have to take salaries on board as well, and we also need to recognise the sheer complexities of being a civil servant. Sir John Kingman is quoted in the Institute for Government’s report as saying that what you need is
“sufficiently dispassionate—and resigned”
attitudes
“to accept and adapt to the changing whims of successive ministers”.
That is a bit hard, but I understand what he means.
I recall a good friend in the Foreign Office who resigned and became headmaster of a public school. I asked him why on earth he had done so, and he said, “Well, I found when I was going to the cinema, William, I was crying too often. I was just having to suppress too many of my own preferences and emotions in order to sustain the neutrality of a civil servant”.
The final thing I want to refer to is the Institute for Government’s suggestion that fostering
“a national culture of contributing to government”
is a way to rebuild respect for the Civil Service and the morale of the Civil Service. If we want to maintain a competent Civil Service, with people coming through to the top who are of the top quality, we have got to shift away from the position in which the mainstream media, and too often politicians on all sides, blame the Civil Service. We should ask for that to stop and for the Civil Service to be valued properly. That is perhaps as hopeless as asking for the second Chamber, the House of Lords in its current composition, to be valued properly as well.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and particularly to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. He is someone who I am learning is always worth listening to. I may never have been a Minister or a civil servant, but I have been an Opposition spokesperson long enough to know not to respond to his question about whether we ought to move to a two-week transition for a change of Government.
We agree completely with the idea of an impartial, permanent, competent, cohesive and goal-oriented Civil Service; that is what we in His Majesty’s Opposition hope to sustain, and perhaps inherit one day. I start by congratulating the committee, and in particular my noble friend Lady Drake, on producing this report. It is pleasing to see that the Government agree broadly with many of the recommendations that it makes. The question of who appoints and removes Permanent Secretaries is a serious issue that, if we are not careful, as my noble friend Lady Drake warns us, becomes slowly and unthinkingly altered amid a rapidly evolving political process.
The impartiality and perceived impartiality of civil servants is to be respected and protected. The political desire that we have seen on occasions to tear up the status quo, rail against the Treasury orthodoxy, or indeed undermine other institutions, be that the BBC, the judiciary or the Civil Service itself, has become—extraordinarily, I find—a prominent, perhaps recent and perhaps now diminishing, strand of Conservative thinking; or rather, to quote Tom Scholar’s predecessor, who was quoting Gordon Brown, evidence that they are “not thinking”.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng certainly were not thinking properly when they announced their plans on taxation and sacked the most senior Treasury official, in anticipation, we expect, of his disagreement with their plans. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that Tom Scholar should have been treated as a servant of the Crown and not of a political party.
The observations from the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that Ministers have far greater influence over appointments than they often realise is useful. We support the recommendations around clarifying this and would like the Minister to please tell us when this will be done.
My noble friend Lady Drake put it very well when she told us that the relationship between Ministers and civil servants has become more exposed and controversial in recent years. She reminded us—I accept that this is an extreme circumstance and am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the long history of change in relationships between civil servants and Ministers—that Dominic Cummings claimed to have appointed and sacked senior staff members. I expect we would all agree that Mr Cummings is not someone to undersell his influence on any event that he is involved in, but, accurate or not, his claims reveal at least a desire to be seen to have this level of control.
The warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about politicisation are instructive. All noble Lords who have spoken agreed that guarding against politicisation should not paralyse or get in the way of progress or modernisation. The fact that Liz Truss saw this and decided to raise Dominic Cummings by sacking Tom Scholar, with such disastrous consequences, makes us pause and question whether we have seen a change that has happened without thought, debate or active decision-making.
The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, about the SLC are welcome, as are her observations about external recruitment. We thank her and her fellow commissioners for their work on this. A politically impartial Civil Service is part of our system of government, and any change to it needs to be thoroughly considered and entered into knowingly, rather than gradually evolving, especially when the motivation is to make a big political splash rather than appoint the most capable individual for a job.
We agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and the committee that spads should not be involved, and we would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. Indeed, the committee rejected the idea that there needs to be broad political alignment between Ministers and civil servants. It is the job of the Civil Service to provide objective, well-informed advice to Ministers, and it is for Ministers to decide and for civil servants to implement that decision.
Clearly, life is never that simple. I enjoyed the false modesty of the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he said that he was the least-qualified person present today to make a contribution; I am proving him wrong in that, because I have never held any of the positions that he has. We understand that there are ambiguities, grey areas, judgment calls and compromises at every corner—that is the reality of government—and therefore that a good working relationship between politicians and their civil servants becomes even more essential. Where this breaks down, it is only right that there is a process for resolving the issue and, ultimately, making sure that Ministers and their top civil servants have a relationship that functions.
Sometimes, that might mean departures, but it should not be a one-day or swift summary decision. A formalised, meaningful process for this is needed, to guard against the risk of civil servants “hedging” their advice to Ministers, as the report put it. Will the Minister please comment on that proposal? I am sure she will say that she has enjoyed and received excellent advice in various government departments over the years, and that she would not want to see that jeopardised and government weakened as a consequence.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, about improvements to training are well made. We are interested in hearing the Minister’s view on that and what progress is being made. I echo those who said that the training needs to be for not just civil servants but Ministers too. I am always keen to hear her views on Ministers’ pay.
We on these Benches are mindful of the immense importance of building trust between Ministers and civil servants from the start. We regret that there are some recent examples where Ministers appear to have gone out of their way to do the opposite.
I finish by saying that this has been one of the most well-informed and interesting discussions that I have taken part in since coming to this House, and it has done great credit to your Lordships’ House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this is essentially a debate about Permanent Secretaries, and especially their appointments and what happens when they leave office. I am well acquainted with the species, having been married to a former Permanent Secretary for over 40 years. Noble Lords might agree that our four sons are evidence of a close and indeed intimate knowledge of the subject.
The Government are grateful to the Constitution Committee for its report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her clear summary and her questions, which I will try to answer in context. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, for her tireless work on the commission, relating to some of the most important roles in the country, as she said.
We are dealing today with one of the most delicate parts of the UK constitution. In this country, we have a system, supported by the report, that the Civil Service should be impartial and able to serve any Administration. They do it differently in the US and in France, for example, but our system has been successful, by and large, for 150 years. Impartiality is one important factor. Another is that the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, especially very senior ones, is crucial to government performance, and there is always a personal element too. Good relations are very important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, as is the ability of civil servants to speak truth to power.
The conventions have to be able to function satisfactorily, not just day to day but when there is a major challenge such as Covid-19. They also have to be able to operate well in the presence of powerful and unusual personalities. I have witnessed this in several departments, as a member of the SCS, as a Minister and from the perspective of private industry.
By and large, I agree with the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that the system is worth preserving. In particular, I agree that the impartiality and perceived impartiality of the Civil Service is a central tenet of our constitution, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, observed, is an important principle in the appointment of civil servants. As he said, from a constitutional perspective, the arrangements provide a good balance.
Ministerial involvement in the appointment process for Permanent Secretaries has to strike a balance. It allows input into the job description, the person specification and the composition of the panel, while preserving the important principle of appointment on merit. The report said that some Ministers were not aware of this. The Deputy Prime Minister and the First Civil Service Commissioner, as we have heard from her, wrote to government Ministers on 8 April to set this out and encourage them to take up opportunities to engage in the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, asked about special advisers. They have no role in the appointment of civil servants. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 states clearly that special advisers
“may not … exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service”.
It refers to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. It in turn specifically states that this includes the recruitment of civil servants, and this is reiterated in the Recruitment Principles.
The close working relationship between the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister necessitates the Prime Minister’s close involvement with the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary. The Civil Service Commission’s recruitment principles do not need to include specific provisions for this appointment. Any process should remain sufficiently flexible to enable the Prime Minister of the day to refine the selection approach as they wish, with the benefit of Civil Service advice. In practice, as has happened in most cases, candidates have submitted an application and have been interviewed for the role.
I also agree with the committee that external appointments to the Civil Service can fill skills gaps and refresh organisational culture. Moves in and out of the Civil Service may benefit the career development of individuals and bring new insights and recipes for success into government. I very much welcome my noble friend Lord Maude’s work to bring much-needed professional skills, such as commercial, digital and programme management, into the Civil Service, which I found on my return to office, while of course understanding his frustrations at that time.
My noble friend may be interested to look at the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s speech to Reform today. In it, the Minister described how we can improve the Civil Service by encouraging “excellent performance”, by improving its attractiveness to outsiders and “specialist talent”, and by improving skills and management training —one of my noble friend’s own preoccupations. I am confident that these changes will help provide the focus on management and leadership training that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I agreed on. I also agree that expressing appreciation for talent and performance can be a powerful and positive driver as part of performance management. I am sure that we will discuss Mr Glen’s proposals further.
I will not comment on pay today, although I think it is a pity that some of the Ministers in this House are unpaid. This discourages some from joining the Front Bench.
The external by default approach to senior appointments is an important step. Data is collected regularly and guidance in the revised Civil Service recruitment framework reinforces this commitment; this includes recording how many permanent recruitment campaigns are advertised externally and where there is a need for a senior Civil Service role on a short-term, temporary basis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, mentioned, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said today that the Civil Service Commission will review the rigour with which the external by default policy is applied. The noble Baroness also said, I think, that the commission will commence a root-and-branch review of the policy, working closely with the Government. More movement in and out of the Civil Service could be valuable, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said.
During the evidence-gathering stage of the inquiry, there was a lot of focus on the role of the Senior Leadership Committee. The Cabinet Secretary provided the committee with details of the SLC’s membership and its terms of reference; indeed, his letter of 30 August was published on the committee’s inquiry page. However, given the interest and the committee’s request today, I can assure the Committee that the SLC’s details will also be added to GOV.UK; I undertake to do that by next week.
The Cabinet Secretary and the First Civil Service Commissioner agree that the senior appointments protocol needs to be updated to reflect current practice; that work is due to be completed shortly. The Civil Service Commission will consider reviewing the Recruitment Principles, particularly in the light of any implications that the updated senior appointments protocol may have for them.
The Cabinet Office, as the sponsor of the Civil Service Commission, is working closely with the commission and the First Civil Service Commissioner to update its existing MoU. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that that dates back to 2010, I am afraid, not 2020. However, work on a new framework document is well advanced to replace the MoU, in line with the Treasury’s practice for arm’s-length bodies. The Civil Service Commission is of course an independent statutory body. It performs important regulatory functions under the CRaG Act, within an accountability framework to Ministers and to Parliament. The upcoming framework document/agreement will set out the commission’s operational independence and codify and clarify its relationship with the Cabinet Office as its sponsor safeguarding its operational independence. I am well aware of the need to resource this area appropriately.
My noble friend Lady Finn commented on this. I can assure her that the CEO of the commission is line-managed by the commission’s senior sponsor in the Cabinet Office. However, the work of the commission’s CEO and staff is directed by the First Civil Service Commissioner.
On business appointment rules, in a statement in July 2023, the Government announced their response to the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Nigel Boardman review and PACAC’s work. A number of those reforms, including reforms to the Governance Code on Public Appointments and transparency declarations, have already been implemented. The response outlined plans to reform the business appointment rules, including changes to Civil Service contracts, and, as has been said, the development of a ministerial deed. The Government recognise that any such changes should not deter people from entering public service—we do not want to have a chilling effect. Similarly, it is in the public interest that people with experience of public administration move into other sectors. We intend to keep this proportionate approach, but, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, this far from simple work is progressing at pace and an announcement will be made in due course.
The Government agree with the committee that HR processes for the performance and misconduct management of Permanent Secretaries are fit for purpose. However, we do not agree with its view that there is scope for the Civil Service Commission to play a role in the dismissal of senior civil servants—we made that clear in our response. Formal HR processes, which sit alongside an individual’s core employment rights, are a matter for the employer. However, Permanent Secretaries should not be removed from their posts without due process, as the Government made clear in our response.
I shall not comment on recent individual exits, as we do not routinely comment on individual HR matters, but these are not decisions which are taken lightly. If the relationship between Ministers and their officials breaks down, swift action must be taken to resolve the situation, stabilise the leadership of the organisation and maintain focus on delivery. Such exits happen from time to time, as we have heard, but they are rare and should be an action of last resort. Since the high-profile exits of 2022, we have in James Bowler a new and experienced Permanent Secretary leading the Treasury and, as was announced recently, General Gwyn Jenkins will become the new National Security Adviser in the summer—we very much look forward to working with them.
A strong relationship between Ministers and civil servants is crucial to ensuring that government functions and delivers effectively. To competently advise the Government of the day and maintain impartiality, civil servants must provide objective, evidence-based advice and take decisions on their merits. We have appointed 11 Permanent Secretaries since the beginning of 2023—that includes specialist Permanent Secretaries—and there has been no difficulty in attracting candidates and no shortage of applicants.
I was pleased to see the report’s conclusion, therefore, that there is no evidence of a trend for the removal of civil servants on political or ideological grounds. However, introducing a criterion of broad political alignment between the Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary, as some have suggested, would complicate the existing duty to serve the Government of the day to the best of their ability regardless of their own political beliefs and would risk undermining their ability to establish the confidence of future Secretaries of State and Governments of different dispositions—I think that there is a lot of support for that view today.
On accounting officers, it is long-standing constitutional practice that each accounting officer is personally and directly responsible to Parliament for the stewardship of resources, against the criteria of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility, as the report notes. Their ability to carry out these essential responsibilities effectively must be maintained, and relies both on the impartiality of Permanent Secretaries and on their ability to speak truth to power. A shift towards greater ministerial influence would risk undermining this, but a ministerial direction can be requested on the rare occasions it is required.
The principle of a single Civil Service across England, Wales and Scotland is important, and we have discussed it at a number of Question Times. We acknowledge the arrangement whereby senior civil servants in Scotland and Wales are accountable to the Scottish or Welsh Government but are managed by their Permanent Secretary, who reports to the Head of the Civil Service. It can be tricky to navigate. However, Permanent Secretaries who are accounting officers are subject to HM Treasury rules set out in Managing Public Money, which can include asking for a ministerial direction on the rare occasion one is needed. In addition, the Civil Service Code, which is adopted and adapted in devolved Governments, sets out clearly the expectations for civil servants. Where Permanent Secretaries are asked to work on and spend public funds on matters outwith devolved competence, the Permanent Secretary should raise this with the Cabinet Secretary.
The Government agree with the committee that the principle of a single Civil Service must be maintained. Both sides benefit from interchange. We recognise the strength of the argument that further guidance to tighten up best practice may be due, and it is in the process of being considered. How all our current guidance supports civil servants working in the devolved Administrations on areas that may relate to reserved matters is a key priority, not least to help ensure that the Civil Service Code is maintained.
This has been an interesting debate. We are honoured to have so many experts on this area gathered together in this beautiful Room. I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the members of her committee, the clerk—who is always so important—and all who have spoken in today’s interesting debate. The report was timely, quick, thoughtful and crisp, and we agree with the majority of its findings. The Government agree with the committee that we should not expand the role that Ministers already play in the appointment of senior civil servants, and we welcome its acknowledgement that existing policies for managing the performance and conduct of Permanent Secretaries are generally fit for purpose.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has participated in this debate. It has been hugely important for me because I am always reading and thinking about these issues, and I have learned a lot for when I go back to the committee. Even if I do not agree, it is important to understand what people think because you cannot solve a problem without understanding what all the parties to an issue feel.
I shall start with the Minister’s response and then pick up one or two points that came up in the debate. I thank the Minister for many of the positives in her response. I note that things are moving apace on the framework agreement, the protocols, the Senior Leadership Team, the business appointment rules and the guidance for civil servants in Scotland and Wales. One of the problems is that it is the consistent experience of the Constitution Committee that we get letters assuring us that work is moving at pace and is in progress and that we will get revised editions shortly, but they do not materialise. That is a pattern that is building up. I hope that it does not happen in this case and that we see the product and do not end up with another Constitution Committee report in three years’ time saying, “We put all this and there were all these promises, but they didn’t materialise”. I urge the Minister to stay on the case so that we see the revised documents.
Regarding the involvement of the Civil Service Commission in departures, we did not argue that it had anything at all to do with the merits of the case. That was not part of what we said. It was that due process was followed, which is about raising confidence in the integrity of the governance structure. Not much process is set down about departures that are not based on misconduct or performance, for which there is standard Cabinet Office guidance; it is about those other areas. There is no due process, and no one has oversight of that. It was not about the merits; the report did not say that the Civil Service Commission is put in a difficult position when appointing people but asked that some process be laid out and that the commission monitors that that process has been followed in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Maude, mentioned merit and said that there is no objective test. That is true; it is the rules not of science but of judgment that come into play here. In a sense, the operationalising of how you apply that judgment is set out in the Recruitment Principles, which says that merit means,
“the appointment of the best available person judged against the published criteria for the role”.
Ministers can get involved, as the First Civil Service Commissioner pointed out, by iteratively engaging with the Civil Service Commission on the features of the job description so that their priorities are reflected in it and pursued at interview. It is quite an iterative process for Ministers in that situation. You could also try to define it by negatives: it is not done by patronage or by allowing preferred candidates because the qualifications of a Minister’s preferred candidates are not necessarily those with merit, as defined in CRaG, for the qualities of a senior civil servant.
Our key point on special advisers was that Ministers must own this decision. Special advisers will be partial—that is not a bad thing; Ministers want them to be partial—but in the recruitment of civil servants their partiality may not align with the merit that we have just been through. That is the fundamental contradiction. The noble Lord, Lord Maude, complimented the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, on having the experience of both sides having been in the Civil Service Commission and a Minister. That is true, and it means that her red lines, which included special advisers, warrant merit because she has seen it from both sides. Special advisers can influence in a partial way something that should be decided on a more dispassionate system of judgment.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Young, demonstrated that it is not necessary to be directly involved in appointments or departures to care about and want to pursue improving the quality of governance and government in our democracy. It should not be reserved for privileged participants because if you have a weakness in group thinking, you will never break out of it if a closed user group are the only people who express opinions.
I accept the point about trend. On the one hand, the Government welcome that we did not see a trend while, on the other, the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, “I hope you are right”. I think you have to see it in the context of our report. He makes a legitimate point that there is a case for a deeper dive over a longer timeline into how this has evolved. We did not do that in our terms of reference and neither, strictly speaking, did we have the capacity to do so. We saw a trigger to look at this again because of what has happened since 2020, in particular, but on the evidence we had over a much shorter time period, we did not have the evidential base to say that there was a trend. If someone wants to look at it over a 20-year timescale, that would be a different issue. So, I can neither agree nor disagree because we never went there; we went for a much narrower look at things.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about departures and dismissals and who can or cannot dismiss, we seized that point quite early. This is why we used the word “departures” all the way through because we did not want to go into that territory, although we knew it was difficult, for exactly the reasons the noble Lord set out, and because we have a duty of care to the senior civil servants impacted and there is a confidentiality wrap around individual cases. We therefore talked about “departures” rather than pointing to specific individuals or categories. However, early on we interrogated the issue of exactly who has the right to dismiss and what is the status of senior civil servants. That is captured in the report.
Finally, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, we all want the best people to lead the Civil Service for the public good and wider strategic outcomes, not just for the efficiency of Ministers. He raised the capability of senior civil servants to support a Government of whatever political complexion. There will be details of policy about how you raise the standard and skill set, but we do not go into details of policy because we are trying to capture the essential constitutional implications.
I have really enjoyed this debate and learned a lot from it. We felt strongly about this, but our remit is always to keep an eye on the constitution. I have to keep saying to my committee: “It doesn’t matter how passionate or unpassionate you feel about a given government policy. Our job is to identify its constitutional implications and calmly lay them out. It’s then for the Government and the House to respond to what we say”.
Artificial Light and Noise: Effects on Human Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
To move that this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee The neglected pollutants: the effects of artificial light and noise on human health (2nd Report, Session 2022-23, HL Paper 232).
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this Science and Technology Committee report on the effects of artificial light and noise on human health. I thank past and present committee members who participated in the report, especially those who will speak in today’s debate. As ever, huge thanks are due to the committee staff for their excellent assistance in preparing the report—Matthew Manning, Thomas Hornigold and Cerise Burnett-Stuart—and to our specialist adviser, Professor Russell Foster from the University of Oxford.
The inquiry ran from January 2023 to July 2023, with follow-up correspondence with Defra earlier this year that is available online. We had 38 oral witnesses, including scientists, architects, mental health experts and noise campaigners, as well as people from professional bodies, private companies, the UK Health Security Agency and relevant government departments. We also published 57 pieces of written evidence.
We decided to look at the impacts of noise and light on people because of the growing evidence base for the impacts on health. Although many of them are on animals rather than on us, there is a common thread in the impact of noise and light on our circadian rhythms. While we have a noise policy statement, and have had one since 2010, we have no equivalent for light despite a dramatic increase in artificial lighting both inside and outdoors since the advent of cheap, energy-efficient LEDs.
Worryingly, despite this step change in our traditional illumination of our lives, there is no formal measurement or monitoring of the change it has brought about. Our report describes noise and light pollution as the neglected pollutants. When we think of pollution, CO2 emissions causing climate change and plastic, water and air pollution all come very quickly to mind. They are all extremely important and need urgent action, but they all have dedicated central government strategies to address them.
This is not the case for the pollution caused by light and noise. It has a passing reference in the 25-year environment plan:
“We must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively”.
Beyond that and the noise policy statement for England, most of the efforts to address noise pollution arise from the environmental noise directive, European Union law that was transposed into domestic law for England, which requires noise mapping and action plans to be published. However, there has not been a major policy push on noise or light pollution in recent years.
These pollutants may be neglected by government, but they are not forgotten by people. I have not experienced such strong public interest in a committee inquiry before. We had a much greater number of submissions from members of the public and campaigning groups than we would normally expect to receive. This will be familiar to local councillors and many constituency MPs, who I am sure have a very keen understanding that noise and light pollution can affect quality of life. This is a quality-of-life issue that I am sure will have affected most of us at some time or another.
However, it is not just a quality-of-life issue. Research by the World Health Organization ranks noise pollution second only to air pollution in western Europe in contributing to ill health. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that 130,000 healthy life years are lost in the UK every year and that 40% of the British population is exposed to harmful noise levels from road traffic. While our understanding of light pollution’s effect on health is more limited, in part due to the lack of a broad evidence base, there is plenty of research suggesting that light pollution has a serious impact on the natural world, from insects to bats. We learned during our inquiry that many animals have even more sensitive circadian systems than we do, and they do not always have the luxury of controlling the light levels in their environment.
Our committee member, the noble Lord, Lord Rees, through his work with the APPG on Dark Skies, highlighted the impact of light pollution on amateur and professional astronomers and the benefits of dark skies to society more broadly. RAND Europe estimates that sleep disturbance costs the UK economy £34 billion a year, and noise and light pollution are significant factors in this. At the sharp end of the stress response, they cause not just annoyance but cardiovascular problems, metabolic effects and even reduced cognitive performance in children. Our inquiry heard a great deal of evidence about how disrupting circadian rhythms can have a strongly negative impact on mental health.
There were occasional positive notes. We heard some interesting evidence about the positive health effects of light boxes for people suffering depression and resetting circadian rhythms when the sun is not around. We urge NICE to look into this as a possible alternative prescription for mental ill-health.
Noise and light may not be grabbing the attention of central government, but they are linked to priorities around NHS mental health waiting lists, which the Government and the Opposition have said they will prioritise and which the public clearly want to see actioned. At a time when the Government are looking for public health interventions at an early stage that can ultimately reduce downstream pressure on the NHS and improve quality of life, it is worth reassessing whether there are some relatively easy wins in reducing exposure to these neglected pollutants.
One issue that concerned us was that this is a policy area that seems to fall between the cracks in government. Defra takes overall responsibility for pollution, including the environmental noise directive and the responsibilities set out in the 25-year environment plan, but much noise comes from road, rail and air traffic, which come under the Department for Transport’s remit. Much of it can be managed through planning, which comes under DLUHC, and dealing with specific planning issues and noise and light complaints typically falls on local government, as decisions to deal with them are often devolved. That means that it is not always clear who is responsible for dealing with these problems, and no one in government really seems to own these neglected pollutants.
Cross-departmental co-ordination is vital but often lacking. For example, our report suggested that local authorities should report trends in noise and light nuisance complaints to the owners of policy in central government, such as DLUHC and Defra, but we were told that this would introduce another burden on local councils. It is very hard to see how a national response to these issues can be co-ordinated if those prioritising and making the policy have no evidence of whether it is being effective. Indeed, the Government have said that they will not commit to developing metrics that would allow them to monitor light pollution. We will continue to rely on amateur surveys, such as counting the number of stars that are visible, to map light pollution in the UK. The commitment in the 25-year environment plan to
“ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively”
rings rather hollow, given that we have no robust way of knowing whether light pollution is getting better or worse.
We all know that local councils have extremely stretched finances and, in some cases, are struggling to meet their statutory obligations. For this reason, our report made it clear that part of addressing this problem would be to ensure that local councils are properly resourced, financially and in terms of expertise, to assess and tackle these issues. In correspondence, the Government set out that the local government finance settlement increased core spending by £4.5 billion. This is welcome and above inflation but, even with this increase, core spending power is still 11% below the 2010-11 levels in real terms, and the duties of councils have changed quite a lot over that period. It is difficult to expect cash-strapped local councils to prioritise addressing noise and light pollution—especially when the benefits accrue outside their areas of responsibility, such as to the NHS and across society more broadly—without some impetus or incentive from central government.
However, there is more good news. One of the really heartening points in our inquiry is that there are professional, campaigning and industry bodies that take this very seriously. The Institute of Acoustics, the Society of Light and Lighting and the Institution of Lighting Professionals are all concerned with ensuring that their industries do not contribute to light and noise pollution. In many cases, they have developed best practice guidance on planning and design and are passionate about seeing it widely adopted. There is significant scientific, public health and technical expertise on the causes of, and solutions for, light and noise pollution. We urge the Government to work with these organisations to ensure that this guidance and support is used effectively each time key decisions are made.
During the inquiry, we were told about Defra’s new noise mapping model. In his letter, the Minister described this as game changing. It will allow Defra and the UKHSA to get better estimates of the burden of disease from noise pollution in the UK. This is a very good first step, for which we commend the department, but we have not yet seen a clear and firm commitment to take action to reduce noise pollution on the results of this modelling.
The Government will not set a target for reducing the disease burden from noise pollution, even as they take steps to measure it more effectively. They say that a target could lead to perverse outcomes, but, without a metric for success, it is hard to know what is meant by their promise to act on noise pollution. This again underlines the lack of real ambition and sense of ownership to deal with these pollutants. We urge the Government, at the very least, to use their model to perform a cost-benefit analysis of potential interventions to understand where they rank in terms of the public health interventions that they need to fund, and to make that information available to the public. Will the Minister commit to this today?
We also urged the Government to develop a national light policy statement, setting out their approach to limiting light pollution and the responsibilities of different departments. In their response, they told us:
“Significant gaps in our understanding of the effects of artificial light would need to be addressed”
before this could happen. This was particularly disappointing as the response also rejected our recommendation to develop a programme of research to investigate the impacts of light pollution. The Government appeared to be saying both that the evidence base for action was not yet there and that they would not support the development of that evidence base. This does little to dispel the impression of neglected pollutants. If the evidence is not yet there to support a national policy, will the Minister make any commitment to funding research or assessing the existing evidence base around light pollution and human health?
For some people who are severely affected, light and noise pollution can make their lives a misery. For many of us, avoidable instances such as the grinding brakes of the Tube or the dazzle and glare from a car’s headlights are a nuisance. Both of those points were raised specifically during the inquiry. These impacts can seem minor but the evidence shows that, in many cases, noise pollution is a serious public health concern. These may be neglected pollutants some way down the Government’s list of priorities, but that does not mean that they do not impact the health, quality-of-life and levelling-up agendas, which are at the top of those priorities. It also does not mean that we would not all benefit from renewed focus and action in these areas, which have not received much political attention for many years.
The Government have developed tools that mean we are now in a position to understand the causes and consequences of noise pollution more effectively than ever before. There is considerable enthusiasm among the public and experts to tackle these problems in a co-ordinated way, but there is still a sense that they are not owned properly anywhere in government and are, at best, being tackled in a piecemeal way. Will the Minister commit to changing this state of affairs, taking co-ordinated action and ensuring that the Government play their role in making sure that we can all enjoy healthier lives with less glare and more peace and quiet? I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and the Minister’s response.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank our chair for her excellent leadership in our examination of policy on light and noise as they affect human health; it has been exemplified by the exposition and presentation she has just given us on the committee’s conclusions. I also echo what she said about the outstanding work done by the staff in preparing the report.
We were not equally happy about the Government’s reaction to our report. The report sought to put policy on a more substantial footing than exists at the moment, with some, frankly, fairly modest recommendations for more research, greater involvement of experts and the updating of policy goals and guidance. Those recommendations are not without any financial consequence, obviously, but they were modest in scope. However, as our chair said, they were met by a pretty negative response, which was also distressingly dismissive in tone and lacking in ambition. The Government’s reply of last December leaves the impression that, where shortcomings exist, the priority to be accorded to them is not great enough to merit much action. We are quite aware that these pollutants are not the most important thing that the Government face. Nevertheless, this is one of those cases where a small amount of action can improve a situation and prevent it getting worse without a great extension of government activity or expenditure.
One of the difficulties pointed out by our chair is that many of the noise generation issues—and, indeed, some of the lighting issues—lie outside the direct purview of the lead department, Defra. They fall under the Department for Transport or local government, or elsewhere in government. We would like to see Defra seek to engage them and assert its co-ordinating role, which is rather dormant at the moment. This is despite the fact that, in its reply, the department acknowledged that, second only to poor health quality, noise is an environmental cause of ill health, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease. The costs of those will not be borne by Defra but they do increase the national bill for health, which the taxpayer has to bear. So, lack of action is not neutral in its effects. Contributing to bringing down the adverse impact of noise should be a priority for Defra; this implies also that the department will work with the UKHSA to fill the gaps in our knowledge that the department accepts exist.
Other members of the committee will cover our conclusions relating to noise. In my remaining time, I will focus on the effects of light, of which our understanding, as others have noted, is even less well developed than that of the effects of noise pollution. The reasons are fairly obvious, but our lesser knowledge does not justify lighting not being treated as a nuisance, when it was recognised as potentially being so as long ago as 1990. Relatively little has happened since then. In 2010, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made recommendations on minimising light pollution, but many of those have remained either unimplemented or only partially implemented. The Minister, Rebecca Pow, told us in her evidence that
“there was not enough evidence to do anything to change the way we regulate”.
Subsequent policy statements have taken different positions. Policy statement 23 of the National Planning Policy Framework removed lighting from the context of the environmental improvement plan, which failed to mention it—whereas the 25-year environment plan included it. That is part of the background to the committee’s comment that policy is confused.
Since the 1990s, artificial light at night has become ever more pervasive and the night sky harder to see. Cheaper LED lighting has increased the pace and brilliance of illumination. A lot of that is popular, but glare on roads from car headlights is becoming an active source of disruption and complaint from drivers. It has long been clear that light can influence circadian rhythms and disrupt sleep, but exactly how and to what extent are less clear. That is why we recommended that, as UKHSA has no explicit team focusing on the effects of light, the work should continue and that it needs to move beyond the laboratory to investigate more realistic light exposure patterns relating to human behaviour so as to provide a better evidence base for mitigation policies.
In her evidence, the Minister acknowledged that, while policy had not evolved much in recent years, the situation was changing. She said that a national policy statement on light, to parallel that on noise, was
“certainly something that could potentially be considered”.
The department’s response of December, however, contains the following statement:
“Significant gaps in our understanding of the effects of artificial light would need to be addressed to inform a Light Policy Statement for England”.
The response argued that a more immediate priority should be to identify the most important knowledge gaps and to prioritise the research to fill them. There is no disagreement on our part that research is needed, but, as our chair has said, the department rejected our recommendation, relating to core evidence, that a standard methodology be developed for tracking, monitoring and reporting on light pollution. It did so on the grounds that technical data issues would need to be resolved by developing the necessary techniques to do this. In other words, valid evidence could not be collected because the department did not know how to do it. I very much hope that the department’s intention to hold a round table of experts to
“identify the most significant gaps in evidence; areas where the most value could be provided to public health; and options for how government can facilitate and potentially coordinate new research”
will be the start of the development of the techniques necessary to collect relevant evidence that could underpin valid research on the impact of artificial lighting. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this.
The department said it did not agree that creating a body of independent experts to give advice would be useful—a surprising statement—as this would “reduce flexibility”, and it commented that “one-size-fits-all guidance” from government on lighting standards would not be useful for professionals. I do not think the committee suggested that or would regard it as sensible. Indeed, when you look at the scene, the professionals have provided quite a lot of the movement, guidance and development on controlling light pollution—more so in many respects than government action. I hope the Minister will agree that, when the department defends its action on the basis of existing policies being followed by various government agencies in different spheres, this, although useful, does not cover the ground adequately.
In the Minister’s letter of 17 April, the Lighting Liaison Group is said to be considering how a UK lighting strategy might look. On the face of it, this is a helpful step forward. I hope its exploration of the possibility of accessible guidance on light pollution for local authorities and their planners to deal with statutory nuisances and develop best practice will result in the creation of such guidance and its implementation by government. The key question is whether “considering” doing it means that the Government will actually do something about it. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. Can the involvement of the UKHSA, which was mentioned, be interpreted as an earnest of the department’s commitment to reducing the impact on health of unwanted lighting?
Finally, it is good to hear that departmental officials are pursuing the possibility of links with relevant officials in other European countries to investigate best practice there. More ambitious research appears to be happening among some of our neighbours, and evidence given to the committee suggests that investigating it could be profitable. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this important and timely inquiry. I welcome the work that has been done and thank those involved. In the interests of brevity, I will speak only about noise pollution.
This is such an important inquiry because it looks at a very poorly understood and evidenced policy area. There is—please excuse the pun—a glaring and complete lack of evidence or understanding of the causes and consequences of noise and light pollution and their impacts on well-being and health. That is not a good position for government or citizens, who depend on good policy for their personal well-being. Regulation is poor and not joined-up or evidence-based. As a result, public policy is not purposeful, which impacts greatly on human health. For noise and light pollution, it really seems to be a case of “see no evil, hear no evil” from past Governments and this one. We need evidence-based policy, preventive strategies and a public health-first approach. This is almost universal across all other areas of government policy. Noise and light are complete outliers.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the past and continuing fight for clean air policy and the development of a knowledge-based and public health-based approach in this area, and contrasting this with developments in noise and light pollution now. Prevention is better than cure in all health matters. On noise pollution, the inquiry says that, while the increased risk to an individual of stroke and heart disease resulting from exposure is low,
“the exposure of millions of people results in a significant aggregate health burden”.
We know that harm is being done to human health, particularly from the impacts of noise pollution:
“Environmental noise and light pollution contribute to a range of adverse health outcomes including heart disease and premature death. Yet light and noise remain neglected pollutants, poorly understood and poorly regulated … Epidemiological evidence suggests that noise pollution can both cause annoyance and increase the risk of stroke and heart disease … The World Health Organization estimates that noise pollution from traffic results in one million healthy life years lost in Western Europe every year; research from the UK Health Security Agency suggests that in 2018, 130,000 healthy life years were lost in the UK”
and that a staggering 40% of the British population are exposed to harmful noise levels from road traffic.
I worked for a few years as a community mediator in London, solving neighbourhood disputes, many of which related primarily to noise issues. From that work, I know what a massive and devastating impact noise pollution can have on people’s everyday lives, their mental health and well-being, and their physical health. That, in turn, impacts on family cohesion, educational outcomes and work prospects. These things should not be underestimated at all: they are really important and they are neglected. When people are in their homes and cannot escape from noise, it has big psychological impacts on them subjectively.
Departmental responsibility is confused. While Defra has the lead, the inquiry highlights that many of the levers sit inside other departments, such as the Department for Transport. This is in stark contrast to policy on all other pollutants, such as air pollution, which sit directly with Defra. In policy terms, the Government need to regulate noise and light pollution, as set out in the 25-year environmental plan in 2018. With no duty to report noise where NPSE applies, the inquiry notes the need to close the feedback loop between policy ownership and policy implementation for noise. There are no specific targets and there is little impetus from central government on these issues. It is also impossible to know whether the limited regulation is effective. Confused responsibilities, a lack of clear guidance and shortfalls in local authorities’ budgets all mean that enforcement action is patchy at best and not consistent across local authority areas. The Government must do more to ensure that local authorities are incentivised to act on noise pollution, and to help share best practice between authorities.
The report makes several recommendations, mainly around data and evidence-based policy approaches, past practice, ownership of policy, and enforcement across government and government departments. I welcome some of the Government’s responses, particularly in recognising that further research is needed on the impact of noise on human health. However, it is disappointing that the Government have not agreed with the call for an expert body to be established.
The Government also failed to recognise the need for an overall noise reduction target, saying that it was not feasible without a “significant amount of work” to understand how targets could be standardised and measured across many different sources and authorities. This work should be undertaken, and I call on the Minister to respond to this point and to think again. I find it shocking that there are still no restrictions on levels of noise pollution from roads, for example.
Mitigation strategies are missing from this report—I am not certain why; I assume that this was felt to be out of scope—but cost-effective mitigation is critical. We must improve noise insulation in housing, particularly social housing. Better building standards and the retrofitting of old buildings need to be government priorities. Can the Minister possibly say a word on the Government’s plans in these areas?
In many areas of noise abatement, what is good for health is also good for the environment, and vice versa. The planting of trees, green petitions, baking in good urban design from the start, and better access to locally available green spaces and nature are win-wins for both public health and the environment.
I know these matters are complex, but my hope is that the Government more than take note of this report; I hope that it helps to shape and guide future policy in these areas, and helps to mark a turning point in our policy regulation of these neglected pollutants.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I say a huge thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for bringing this debate, which is well overdue—I say that not as a criticism but with relief that it has actually happened.
Back in 2000, three Greens, newly elected to the brand-new London Assembly, were made aware by a diligent staff member that London was about to fail the EU standards on clean air. We worked on that issue, and I have worked on it ever since. The evidence has stacked up on the damage that air pollution does to humans—often the poorest in society who live closest to large roads. The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah meant that it was understood that such pollution could cause deaths, as well as all sorts of other health issues. Ella was the first person in the world to have air pollution as a cause of death on her death certificate.
My work has included bringing a Private Member’s Bill to this House with some quite tough measures to clean up our air. It passed, but it is now languishing in the other place. However, not once that I can remember have we thought about the impact on wider, non-human ecosystems. As the Select Committee says, there are significant gaps in our research on all kinds of pollution. I was interested that the Government’s response was rather dismissive. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of that dismissiveness.
The excellent briefing from Buglife concentrates on research into artificial light pollution and lists a worrying number of detrimental impacts on all forms of wildlife and on humans. While I understand that the reduced number of meteors visible to us because of light pollution is a shame, it is the list of impacts on human health which disturbs me. It includes diabetes, depression and cancer from disrupted circadian rhythms, not to mention considerable consumption of electricity and greenhouse gas emissions.
Much more than that, the impact on insects, birds, bats, reptiles, sea-life, fish and crabs, and even plants such as corals—are they plants?—is truly worrying. Light pollution can confuse and alter feeding, life cycles and survival. There is a mantra: “No bees, no bugs, no food, no people”. Luckily, in the case of light and noise pollution, we have a Select Committee report that clearly outlines what we do not know but ought to know, and suggests some methods of getting there.
Noise pollution is easier for most of us to understand. Here in London, in Lambeth, I get woken by foxes shrieking, or even occasionally by my overhead neighbour’s clog-dancing classes, and we all hear aeroplanes. Aeroplane noise from Heathrow is painfully unbearable for many residents—apparently there is, on average, one complaint every five minutes. I completely support the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about better noise insulation in housing; that should be a must. With noise pollution, we get an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and strokes. That puts pressure on all other parts of society, such as children having to deal with ill parents, and on the NHS. It is not just a complicated issue but one that impacts society.
On noise pollution, there has been a fairly positive reaction from the Government, who say that work is under way. It would been good to hear an update from the Minister on how that work on noise pollution is going. The Select Committee argued that the current government approach to regulating noise and light pollution is “confused”, but instead of taking this report and accepting that there is a problem here for national government, we see excuses.
One possible bright point in the response is that the
“UKHSA will consider a dedicated team focusing on light and health”.
It would be lovely to hear an update on that dedicated team. However, the Government disagreed with the committee’s request for a statutory requirement for local authorities to report nuisance complaints to DLUHC, as this
“would introduce a new burden on stretched local authorities”.
That is because the Government have massively cut their budgets, so they can barely run the transport schemes that would reduce the number of cars on the road and so improve air pollution.
Finally, the Government argued that the committee’s
“recommendation that DLUHC should set out what resources local authorities should have to respond adequately to light and noise pollution policies would involve restricting the choices local authorities are able to make over their own staffing and funding priorities”.
The Government have no problem interfering in other areas of local authority work, so I wonder why not this one.
It is not as if this Government have not been warned. I do not just mean by the Select Committee today and by environmental activists like me. Back in 2009 there was a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, but almost none of its recommendations have been implemented. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why that is. My last question is: when is Defra going to take this seriously?
Finally, I am so delighted to be speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he says that when I speak, I make the rest of the speakers look reasonable. I thank him for that.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for that introduction. I will correct the record; corals are animals related to jellyfish and sea anemones. I am a zoologist, so I have to be pedantic about these things.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. It was a great privilege to serve on the Science and Technology Select Committee under her brilliant chairmanship and to benefit from the superb support of Thomas, the policy analyst, and Matthew, the committee clerk, as well as Professor Russell Foster, the specialist adviser.
In my few minutes I will speak about noise. I will make four points related to the economy, responsibility, data and solutions. First, on the economy, last month the Prime Minister announced an initiative to get many long-term sick people off benefits and back to work. He described it as a “moral mission”. You can see why it is a problem. Apparently, there are 2.8 million people of working age off work with long-term health issues. According to the Prime Minister, this costs the country £69 billion in benefits—more than the schools’ budget.
If you believe, as I do, that we should aim to prevent people getting sick in the first place rather than punishing them once they are sick, we should look at the causes of chronic ill health. There are, of course, many causes, but one important contribution, highlighted by our report, to chronic ill health is exposure to noise. We have heard the figures from noble Lords before: 40% of population are exposed to harmful noise from roads, 130,000 healthy life years are lost each year as a result of noise pollution and sleep disturbance costs the economy an estimated £34 billion per year, noise and light pollution being significant contributors. I do not know how reliable those figures are—I did not study exactly how they were derived—but I think it is safe to conclude that noise is both a significant economic and health problem in this country. Therefore, it should be a higher priority for reducing long-term sickness. Does the Minister agree?
My second point, which has already been covered by previous speakers, concerns responsibility. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is here this afternoon—I have the greatest respect for him, and I wish him well in answering this debate—but, as others have said, it is slightly odd that Defra is responding. If you ask which departments bear the health and benefits costs of noise pollution, it is not Defra but the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions. If you ask which department should worry about the impacts on the workforce and economic growth, it is not Defra but probably BEIS and the Treasury. If you ask which departments have policy responsibility for the levers that could reduce noise pollution, it is not Defra, but DfT for transport noise and DLUHC for matters such as planning, local authorities and soundproofing standards. As others have asked—I repeat the question—could the Minister in his response tell us who has overview of the impacts of noise on health, well-being and the economy and for deciding on appropriate measures to reduce these impacts?
I turn now to the theme of data. As the saying goes: if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. This is why Defra officials were especially pleased to demonstrate their new noise map, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. This map is capable of revealing, we were told and shown, at a very fine scale of resolution who is exposed to excessive noise. Although this is a useful step forward, the modelling underpinning the noise map has a significant weakness: it is based on the average noise exposure over a 24-hour period but often intermittent noise is more of a problem. Imagine that you live near a road with a loose drain cover that goes “clunk” every time a vehicle drives over it, near a rail track along which an express freight train hurtles once every half an hour, near an airport where low-flying aircraft disturb the peace every few minutes or in the countryside where a bird-scarer fires off once a hour. In all those cases, the noise map might conclude that you are living in a quiet, peaceful location because the average noise over 24 hours does not exceed a certain threshold. However, the annoyance and the impact on health—for instance, by sleep disturbance—could be high. Noise researchers in Switzerland are developing methods to model intermittent noise and its impact. Does the Minister agree that although the noise map is a useful first step, it will be of more value in guiding policy when it incorporates intermittent noise?
Finally, I turn to policy solutions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded to solutions. We heard rather little on them in our inquiry, so let me make a suggestion. With other environmental pollutants, there is an accepted principle that, in so far as it is possible, they should be tackled at source. It is better to stop sewage being released into rivers than to try to clean up the rivers afterwards. It is better to reduce waste than to bury it in landfill. It is better to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than to invest in costly technologies to suck it from the atmosphere. Does the Minister agree that the same principle of tackling at source should be applied to noise? If so, can he suggest what measures might be implemented to reduce noise at source?
Here are a few thoughts for traffic noise. First, introduce lower speed limits in built-up areas; I note that this is the opposite of current government policy. Secondly, create quieter road surfaces using new technology. Thirdly, repair potholes and drain hole covers. Fourthly, implement the findings from a Europe-wide project covering 12 countries—including the UK—that investigated ways of reducing rail noise under a scheme called LOWNOISEPAD. Finally, encourage less noisy forms of transport, such as walking or cycling. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, they are often win-wins: things that reduce the burden of noise pollution also have benefits for the climate and health aspects. As well as the co-benefits, these measures will also promote innovation in the infrastructure industry, so what is not to like? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, the whole idea behind the work of the committee that led to this report was that we might be able to point to valuable public health interventions to improve quality of life and reduce the pressures on the NHS in the UK. We urge the Government to reconsider their policy on light and noise pollution and to take these issues more seriously; every speaker so far has said precisely that. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has already made the case very powerfully. I pay tribute to her as a brilliant chair of the committee, to our clerk, Matthew Manning, to our policy adviser, Thomas Hornigold and, of course, to our special adviser, Professor Russell Foster.
I must declare my interest as chair of the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust because I had to send my apologies for a meeting this afternoon in order to attend this debate today. When I did, the chairman of that committee, who is a very distinguished doctor, wrote back and said, “Of course. It’s really important”. We all want less light at night and less unwelcome noise; he just made the point that it is really important. This matter concerns absolutely everybody.
It is for that reason that I find the Government’s response so very disappointing. There is real public interest here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, we had a huge response to this report, much more than we normally do to a Select Committee report. People mind about this, and we should take it seriously. We know that noise pollution is detrimental to human health and well-being. We heard quite a lot of the data. We heard good evidence on annoyance and sleep disturbance relating to cardiovascular disease—that is, heart attacks in relation to road traffic noise—about which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said something. There is also some evidence on metabolic impacts, in particular diabetes.
We have heard about the estimate from the World Health Organization and the European Environment Agency back in 2018 that more than 100 million people were exposed to harmful levels of environmental noise pollution. People are saying that there are an estimated 48,000 new cases of heart disease and 12,000 premature deaths every year in Europe, and so on. We know quite a lot about the data—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, we could probably know a great deal more.
I add to that; this is really important. Based on new research, the World Health Organization has concluded that the negative health effects caused by prolonged exposure to environmental noise are likely to occur at much lower noise level thresholds than previously thought. This implies that better management of noise generally would considerably benefit the UK population. It goes precisely to the point about the number of days off taken for ill health because of the stress caused by these noise problems. We know that people mind about it.
I could go on about this for a long time but I shall not because I have a specific question for the Minister. We were told that noise pollution issues span government departments. Better interdepartmental co-ordination is clearly warranted, therefore, but the Government did not accept our recommendation for an expert advisory group on noise pollution—as there is for air pollution—despite witnesses to the committee making it clear that there was no one place to go with new and emerging evidence of harms. In their response, the Government simply spelled out the good work led by Defra that is already going on with the collaboration of UKHSA and others, to which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred. We commended that work but, if the effects of noise pollution are as great as the World Health Organization and the UK Health Security Agency suggest, what is going on now is simply inadequate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some explanation as to why the eminently sensible recommendation for an expert advisory group was rejected. Given the evidence, that decision seems somewhat perverse.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, mentioned, the Government argued that we need flexibility. They said:
“Flexibility must be maintained to draw in the most appropriate expertise to individual areas of research, rather than relying on a group of individuals to embody all necessary knowledge across the board”.
Of course that is the case—it is obvious—but that might equally be true about air pollution. An expert advisory group does not have all the knowledge at its fingertips; it has people on it who know whom to go to in order to get the material they want. It was seriously perverse to turn down the recommendation on that basis. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some explanation.
I could go on but I shall not. I want simply to add two other things. We know that light pollution is much more difficult to measure at the moment. We cannot calculate a burden of disease in the same way as we can for noise pollution—probably because of a lack of data, which has been referred to on all sides of the Committee—but it is interesting that, in Japan, a series of longitudinal studies have measured the light in people’s environments. We lack that in the UK, so it seems absolutely essential for us to say now that we will start to undertake those sorts of studies. The UK Health Security Agency is doing great work in this area but it needs to go further.
If you talk to hospital patients and staff who work in hospitals at night, they will tell you all about exposure to light and how incredibly disturbing it is. People who have been in hospital for a long period—we have rather a lot of them at UCLH—will tell you that the worst thing once they come out is not the general convalescence but trying to get back their sleep patterns, which have been disturbed over a long period because of exposure to light. We need light in hospitals but we could do better there, too. The Government need to take the issue of light more seriously and say more about it. They need to give us a really good explanation for why they did not accept our recommendation for an expert advisory group.
Lastly, the Government already have in UKHSA a team of experts on circadian rhythms and the impacts of light on health, but we need to see this as a single point for evidence gathering and co-opting external expertise. I would argue that, as well as having an expert advisory group on noise, the Government should think about having an expert advisory group on light.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as a council member of the RSPB because I will, as noble Lords would expect, concentrate on the biodiversity angle of this issue. I say to the noble Baroness that I am a member of Buglife; I have had some excellent briefing from David Smith and Matt Shardlow.
I congratulate the committee, in particular the chair, on an excellent report. I have already heard a great deal. If there is one thing about following noble Lords, it is that, if I am not sounding reasonable, I am finding myself intellectually unequal. It is a great thing to listen to noble Lords; I rather wish I had not put my name down sometimes.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the chair made a point about constituency MPs. With regard to noise in its many forms from road traffic, a new road surface was eventually put down on the A40 where it was dualled because it was causing so many problems; that was probably around when I first came into Parliament, in 1997 or 1998. The neighbour problem is huge. It is not that the neighbours are necessarily noisy; it is just that the walls are so thin. Ultimately, the two other big issues that used to be in my constituency have not gone away. One was Heathrow and the impact of noise on residents, particularly children; there was a report on cognitive problems. The other was HS2, although it put quite a lot of effort into trying to show that it was not going to be noisier than what was already there with ordinary trains. Anyway, I digress.
I want to talk about light pollution. We know that it occurs and that we have to be considerate about safety problems and things like that. Research published in 2023 revealed a rapid increase in global light pollution levels of 10% a year for the past decade, which represents a doubling of sky brightness every eight years. We occasionally see maps on TV of the light coming from Europe. It is quite scary because what is that doing to humans and to our natural world? No artificial light is truly environmentally friendly due to its disruption of the natural rhythm of day and night. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that, having spent a good deal of the past year in hospital—and with another little rest period coming up—I understand her position on light. I know why it is there; I think they just switch it on to annoy me from time to time, but that is life.
These are all very serious matters. We know about the problem of insects declining. There is a great deal of evidence to show that that is due to lots of things but one of them is artificial light, such as street lights. We also have a problem, which has already been mentioned, with marine animals. I do not know whether your Lordships remember seeing “Planet Earth II”; I am talking about the last episode, I think. When young turtles hatch, they normally go towards the moon, but they were fooled by a taverna and were all crunched into the road because they thought the moon was the other way. That is a good example of the sort of problem we face.
I am not entirely convinced in some areas. In the countryside, there are a few areas where it is still quite dark at night. I am not sure that it is that dangerous. I understand the problem of personal safety, of course, but I am not entirely sure that people do not feel better just looking up at the stars—assuming it is not cloudy.
One reason why I shall be utterly reasonable is that my noble friend Lord Benyon is the most reasonable of men. I do not think that Defra is not doing its full amount; I think that it is down to some of the other departments, so I echo the call for something that encompasses all the departments. I make just a little plea on that—in an entirely reasonable way, I assure my noble friend.
Funnily enough, as I was coming here today, the Metropolitan line let me down—or a fire at Rayners Lane did—so I got an Uber with a gentleman to Harrow-on-the-Hill. It turned out that he is in the lighting industry. We were discussing this, and he said that there are lots of controls for lighting to make sure that it is not invasive in many areas. He also mentioned that there are switches, so in those large buildings that we see lit up somebody can actually go round and switch the lights off. That would save companies money and save us on some of the emissions. The other thing he said was that he had just been putting in some bat-friendly lights around Kew Gardens. These things exist; we just have to make sure that they are not just for those places that consider them but go a little wider.
I was interested to read that in France’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, in response to COP 15, there is an ambition to achieve a 50% reduction in light pollution by 2030. Slovenia, Czechia and Croatia are adopting regional laws around that too. Perhaps we can learn something from that.
I tried making amendments along these lines to the Environment Bill and got quite a lot of support, but possibly I was too reasonable in listening to the answers. I will not let this go away, because it is incredibly important. Addressing light pollution will have multiple benefits in tackling nature, climate, energy and economic crises. I will leave it there and wait to hear from my noble friend.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on setting up a committee on this important but neglected subject, and the committee itself on an excellent report. I have listened with great interest to the valuable speeches from its members today.
The report rightly concentrates on the effect of light and noise on human health, but that assumes that there is a positive good in the first place. If too much noise is harmful, then the assumption is that lack of noise, silence, is of value in itself, so I want to begin by emphasising this simple point. In March and April 2010, a volcano in Iceland erupted, sending billions of tonnes of ash into the air and resulting in the cancellation of some 100,000 flights over an eight-day period. The effect on the ground literally felt miraculous. It was as though we lived in a world born anew, one characterised by a deep quiet. We may remember that there was something of the same healing silence in the worst days of Covid, when movement of traffic by air and road was at a minimum. Those experiences remind us that, for most people, silence, or at least a minimum noise level, is a positive good and that if we are deprived of it there are inevitable implications for mental, physical and spiritual health. It is not surprising that within at least most religions of the world silence has been of so much value and people have gone to such lengths to find it in deserts and monasteries. Let me quote just one example, from Gerard Manley Hopkins:
“Elected Silence, sing to me
And beat upon my whorlèd ear,
Pipe me to pastures still and be
The music that I care to hear”.
A great deal could be said about traffic noise—I would have liked to hear more about that—but, against that background, I will focus on aircraft noise. I was surprised that it was not mentioned in the report, although the Government refer in their response to two Department for Transport-funded domestic cross-sectional studies, one on aviation night noise and one on attitudes to aviation noise. I do not criticise the committee; I will later come on to the fact that, at the moment, strangely, aircraft noise does not seem to be covered by the statutory definition of noise or a pollutant.
I declare an interest as someone who lives in west London, one of the many millions along the Thames, from Fulham and Putney through Barnes, Richmond, Kew, Windsor and Hounslow, who suffer—I use the word deliberately—aircraft noise. If you look up “aircraft noise” on the internet, you find adverts for soundproof windows. That is fine when you are in the house, but being outside on a summer’s day can be destroyed by the regular deafening noise coming from overhead every minute or so, and you are forced indoors again.
Paragraph 10 of the Government’s response refers to the benefits of green spaces and claims that £2 billion of treatment costs could be saved if everyone in England had access to green space. However, if you go to some of the best green spaces in Britain today—Richmond Park, Kew Gardens, Windsor park and the smaller parks in the Hounslow area—the day’s outing can be totally blighted and destroyed. More widely, children’s learning at school gets disrupted and health suffers in all sorts of ways, as the report emphasises. A large-scale study of people living under the flight path in the Heathrow area found that they were 10% to 20% more at risk of stroke and heart disease.
As I suggested, I imagine aircraft noise did not feature in the report in the way it might have done because it seems to be legally exempt from the charge that it could be polluting. The Civil Aviation Authority guidance notes that aviation noise does not constitute a statutory nuisance, unlike other forms of noise pollution, and nor is it covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Noise Act 1996. This means that local authorities do not have the legal power to take action on matters of aircraft noise, and nor does the Civil Aviation Authority have the legal power to prevent aircraft flying over a particular location or at a particular time for environmental reasons.
This is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is as though aircraft noise occupies its own space, legally exempt from the kind of challenges you would normally get from the public in so many other spheres of life. The public can make complaints—as we have heard, they do so regularly—but aircraft noise is exempt from any kind of legal challenge. Surveys show a great deal of public dissatisfaction at this. Although it is claimed that engines are now much quieter than they were, as somebody who has lived under a flight path for three or four decades I can say that there is no sign of that in my hearing. The level of public annoyance remains extremely high and the ability of Governments to pressure the aircraft industry seems very limited.
Although in modern life we have to accept much noise, as we have to accept the weather, we should not just continue to accept the present level of aircraft noise as though nothing can be done about it. Present levels are totally unacceptable for so many people. What steps are the Government taking to address this situation? I suggest that it would be worth having a special committee or group of some kind on aircraft noise. There are due to be 40.1 million flights this year, a number which is due to increase by 4.3% a year up to 2042. A committee on this subject, set up by the Government and with a brief to look at this seriously from all sides and make recommendations about what might be done to reduce and minimise aircraft noise, would be widely welcomed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the committee for its work on the report. I thank the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for introducing it, as well as all members of the committee who contributed to it and to today’s discussion.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted something that is key to the report’s findings:
“Environmental noise and light pollution contribute to a range of adverse health outcomes … Yet light and noise remain neglected pollutants, poorly understood and poorly regulated”.
We heard about the WHO and the European Environment Agency estimates of exposure to harmful levels of environmental noise pollution. I was particularly interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that they now think it will have a negative impact at lower levels than initially thought. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, focused particularly on aircraft, which have a particular impact. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that, even though it is clearly not central to the report.
The sources of noise pollution that the report talks about clearly include transport, industrial activities and wind turbines, for example. The report also talks about heat pumps and neighbourhood noise. This complicated issue is complicated even further by the need to understand the impact of intermittency, which is a particularly interesting part of it. We heard about the health impacts, particularly around sleep and circadian rhythms being confused. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about the impact of poor health on the economy and linked how noise pollution contributes to this.
Chapter 2 of the report clearly demonstrated the growing level of scientific evidence, as well as the need for further research and data to support the Government in order to act on the detrimental effects on our physical and mental health. I noted the recommendation in paragraph 28, which suggested:
“The UK should seek opportunities to collaborate with similar countries, sharing research data and methodologies”.
Does the Minister have any information about what is happening in this area? Collaboration will clearly be key.
Paragraph 15 talks about the significant amount of work that will be needed to implement any noise reduction targets. So, in addition to the potential role outlined for the UKHSA, have relevant departments spent any time scoping out what the workload to achieve this would look like? For example, are they looking at international examples?
I wish to focus on the government response to some of the recommendations on noise. First, the Government say:
“Much of the work recommended … is already under way”.
Noble Lords have talked about the new noise mapping system that has been developed. As other noble Lords said, this is a welcome first step forward, but intermittency does not seem to be taken into account; that clearly needs to be addressed. On intermittency, the Government say that
“Defra’s noise modelling system has been designed so that it could incorporate intermittency at a later date, should robust methods be agreed nationally or internationally”.
Is any work or co-operation currently taking place in order to achieve this?
Heat pumps are referred to in paragraph 16 of the government response, which says that
“an independent review of existing evidence on noise emissions and planning standards is being conducted. This is to be followed by a public consultation”.
Can the Minister provide an assurance that noise will not be used as a way of delegitimising the shift away from gas boilers? There clearly are concerns about noise, particularly if heat pumps are too close to a neighbouring property, but confirmation that the Government remain committed to boosting the rollout of low-carbon or no-carbon heat sources would be very welcome. What action, if any, are the Government taking given that the report concluded that most noise complaints about heat pumps come from poor-quality installations rather than inherent issues with the pumps themselves?
The report makes clear that light pollution is poorly understood and poorly regulated, as noble Lords have said. I also note the adverse effects that light pollution can have on both physical and mental health. Light pollution occurs when light shines where it is not intended to and where it is not wanted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said when referring to Buglife, light pollution is the human-made alteration of light levels from those occurring naturally. We know that symptoms of light pollution are wide-ranging. We heard about the importance of being able to see the night sky and look at the stars, which few people can do day to day from where they live. The Buglife briefing was very good. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, in particular referred to it, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Jones.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, also spoke about the fact that light pollution is increasing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, a lot of this is to do with the rapid switch to LEDs. This increases light pollution because the lights are brighter. We have also heard about headlight glare, which comes from using LEDs. The increased blue-light radiation from LEDs causes substantial biological impacts. The report says:
“A significant proportion of light pollution is unnecessary and caused by bad design or poor use of LEDs”.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned some very simple ways, from his conversation with his driver, in which light can be reduced. We should be looking at these simple, easy ways as a starting point.
We heard about the health impacts to do with sleep patterns and how this affects overall well-being and quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, stressed the importance of cross-departmental work. There also needs to be co-ordination with local authorities, which is a central part of the report’s recommendations. The report says:
“The Government should make clear where in each affected department responsibility for noise and light pollution lies”,
and we heard this during the debate. Does the Minister believe that this is being achieved? Can it be achieved and how will it be achieved?
Regarding local authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, asked about resources. Witnesses interviewed for the report were concerned about a gap between the policy set by the Government and how the policy is being applied by local authorities. As well as looking at resources, will the Government consider reviewing the effectiveness of policy application in this area?
I turn to the Government’s response on headlight glare, for example. This issue has been raised consistently by my noble friend Lady Hayter. In April, the Government announced independent research in that area. Can the Minister provide some clarification? I know this was announced only in April, but how long is it likely to take? Are the next steps likely to be consultation or will it move straight to further regulation? I know that it is early days, and perhaps this is something the Minister could write to me on in the future. It would be interesting to know the progress on this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, mentioned that major technical and data issues need to be resolved within government priorities. I am concerned that the government response says:
“Further development of the evidence base will need to be considered within the context of government priorities”.
Does that mean that the work has not even started yet? Is it considered a priority?
Finally, it is clear to all of us here that this is a really important report that needs to be acted on. Because of where I live and work, I have clear personal experience of how this affects me. In Cumbria, we have dark skies and peace. I come to London to work during the week, and I struggle to sleep because of the difference in noise and the amount of light compared to where I live. I think many people would note that difference more if they could see that transition more clearly.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, which has been fascinating. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for securing this debate on an important subject that affects people’s daily lives and for giving me advance knowledge of what she was going to say, which helped me to form my words in response. I am aware that the World Health Organization has placed noise second only to poor air quality as an environmental cause of ill health. I also thank the Science and Technology Committee for its ongoing interest in this area; I hope I can convince it that the Government are doing enough and will continue to treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. I will outline why that is the case.
We aim to balance a complexity of interplaying factors in supporting the economy alongside the health and mobility of the nation. These factors include available government resources and competing national priorities. The Government recognise that noise and artificial light can have an effect on human health. The evidence associating ill health, such as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, with prolonged exposure to noise is increasing. Government figures suggest that 100,000 disability-adjusted life years were lost to road traffic noise alone in England in 2018.
Although evidence for the human health effects of artificial light may be less well advanced, there are compelling reasons to explore them further. It is right, therefore, that the Government have taken and continue to take action. I am pleased to have this opportunity to update your Lordships on some of the progress that the Government have made against commitments in response to the committee’s findings, which I hope noble Lords will find encouraging.
I will talk about our advances on noise first. The most significant accomplishment is the new noise-modelling system. I believe this to be a game-changer for policymakers and decision-makers in the management of environmental noise. This world-leading, award-winning system will contribute significantly to the national evidence base on noise exposure. It is based on high-quality data and takes in all public roads and railways for the first time. It will enable national and local government to make decisions on much improved evidence around the impacts of noise. By quantifying the existing population exposure and calculating the associated disease burden, a much clearer picture of where government efforts should be focused will emerge. This tool will provide data that has never been available before, which will be invaluable to the UK Health Security Agency in its work to keep its burden of disease tools up to date.
Defra’s noise-modelling system has been designed to incorporate additional functionality at a later date. A topic of great interest to the committee was extending Defra’s noise mapping to include the metrics of maximum volume and, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, intermittency. Those may be incorporated into the system should robust methods be agreed nationally or internationally; I will talk later about the very salient points that were made about international co-operation. I must caution that progress in these areas may not meet the committee’s desires in terms of speed and breadth. Collectively, we must remain pragmatic and realistic about what can be done, depending on resources, but I hope that this addresses the concerns about our commitment. We are determined to move this matter further as quickly as possible.
Further to that development, your Lordships may be aware of the ongoing expert group on noise. The aim of the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (Noise Subject Group) is to assess the most recent research on the health impacts of noise and to determine whether updates to the Government’s guidance on addressing the economic impact of noise are necessary. This work draws in expertise and collaboration from across government. Again, this addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about diverting people away from needing healthcare by leading healthy lives; I will address further points on this later.
In response to the committee’s report, preparations are under way for the round-table event that will explore the current state of play and identify areas of priority for further work. These discussions will help inform the Government’s priorities looking to the future, for example, consideration of a cost-benefit analysis of potential interventions, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown.
The Government are also commissioning more research to bolster the evidence base used to support ongoing policy development. Recent and ongoing Defra-commissioned research includes: supporting the development of improved modelling standards on transport noise; developing a handbook for local authorities and others on the benefits of green infrastructure, which addresses some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Randall; and investigating diversity in acoustics in age-related hearing loss, neurodiversity and noise sensitivity.
The Department for Transport has also commissioned two domestic cross-sectional studies, following international best practice: the aviation night noise effects study and the aviation noise attitudes survey. Since Defra submitted the response to the report, my officials have commenced work on three new research projects aimed at providing practical noise management tools for local authorities and regulators implementing British standards for noise.
Of clear importance to the committee was a commitment to an overall noise reduction target. Let me explain why this is not feasible just yet. Noise is a complex entity and not simply an issue of decibels, and to further complicate this, people react to noise in different ways. The science is not yet able to support a meaningful target that does not have all sorts of perverse outcomes, and a significant amount of work is needed to understand how targets could be set, standardised, measured and achieved across many different noise sources and authorities. This includes having a reliable method to measure compliance against a statutory target. Until the data produced by our modelling system and the UKHSA’s burden of disease work have been considered, it is not appropriate to pre-empt the analysis with a commitment to setting targets on noise reduction at this point.
The Noise Policy Statement for England sets out the Government’s position on some of the issues with taking an approach based on objective noise-based measures. The Government are determined to avoid the possibility of perverse outcomes from imposing noise limits, as was seen recently in the Netherlands, where such a regime led to the closure of an established children’s playground located next to new housing. The Government believe that the correct course of action is a commitment to addressing evidence gaps and exploring the full range of options before committing to setting targets.
I absolutely emphasise the point on neurodiversity. Those of us who know children who are affected by ADHD, for example, know that they can find a noise that we find completely benign or of which we are almost unconscious so intense that they cannot stay in that place for any time. We have to relate to the divergence of the effects of noise.
This is intended to be the beginning, rather than the end, of the process, and the Government will of course continue the programme of research and policy development as resources allow, and keep parliamentarians apprised.
I turn now to light pollution. Research continues to show many societal benefits from artificial light, encompassing safety and security, and facilitating a thriving night-time economy. However, if used incorrectly, artificial light can contribute to a range of problems. It can be a source of annoyance to people and harmful to wildlife, and it can waste energy and detract from the enjoyment of the night sky. As I previously mentioned, evidence around the health effects of light pollution is considerably less advanced than for other pollutants and may not yet be of a level to justify changes to legislation. However, the Government are not standing still.
To address the points raised by the nobles Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones and Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Randall, there will be a round-table event, like that for noise, to identify priorities. Officials are continuing to pursue links with relevant officials in other European countries to learn about best practice where it exists for artificial light management. It is worth saying that other countries are struggling with this as well. The light maps for Madrid, for example, took six years to produce. That is not to say that we should shirk away from doing these things, but they are complex; if other countries are finding this tricky, we will too—although that should not prevent us doing it.
In response to the committee’s recommendations, UKHSA has initiated a new working group under the auspices of the existing Lighting Liaison Group, which is considering what a UK lighting strategy might look like. That group is exploring the possibility of accessible guidance for local authorities on light pollution, both for planners and for dealing with statutory nuisance provisions and best practice.
In addition, in answer to a question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has agreed to undertake a scoping exercise on the available evidence on the health issues associated with light pollution. Unlike noise, there is no current equivalent process for mapping light pollution. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has conducted light mapping but there are some limitations and considerable costs associated with the technology that is currently available. A great deal of further research is needed to establish the effects, methodology, metrics and measures. We are not yet in a position to commit to a timeframe for resourcing and producing such mapping but we are exploring possible avenues.
As a former constituency MP, I really do pay tribute to the CPRE for providing me with a light and noise map of my constituency and an understanding of the parts where the darkest skies are and the places where light has the least intrusive effect. As an elected representative, whether you are an MP or a councillor, such things help you to defend those areas where you can through the planning process. Of course, the best solutions are always ones that are delivered locally.
In the real world, local authorities are crucial in the management of noise and artificial light. They have a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of noise nuisance and artificial light pollution, and must act where needed. The Government recognise that local authorities face serious capacity and capability challenges—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The majority of funding provided through the local government finance settlement is not ring-fenced. Councils are independent, democratic bodies whose expertise in local knowledge makes them best placed to understand what is needed to deliver local priorities. They are accountable to local people and are therefore free to judge how to respond and fund their responsibilities relating to noise and light pollution.
Given the demands on local government, central government cannot enforce costly new burdens on already stretched local authorities without strong evidence that they will deliver improvements. This is why we need to be sure that the evidence supports any changes we make to our policy requirements. The Government also have a duty of stewardship with public funds and need to make responsible choices around what they commit to funding. Some of the committee’s recommendations will require years of research and significant technological advances to be able to implement new policy. Departments are working to identify those issues on which they can rightly take action, and which will have the greatest impact in the near future, in a co-ordinated way across government.
Let me take this opportunity to address some of the points that were made. My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones asked—quite rightly—what leverage Defra has over other departments in government. Defra can bring noise and light to the table but it is for other departments to assess the issues within the context of the various priorities that need to be balanced. For instance, the main aim of National Highways in installing lighting on junctions is to reduce accidents. Safety concerns, as well as protecting people’s ability to go about at night without fear, are key considerations in lighting our streets. However, examples of where Defra has influenced other departments include influencing the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on air source heat pumps; influencing DLUHC on policy development; influencing the Department for Transport on aviation noise; influencing the UKHSA on the burden of disease work; influencing National Highways and the Rail Safety and Standards Board on the potential uses of Defra’s noise model; the participation of all relevant government departments in the Defra-instigated IGCB(N) work; and the existence of the planning policy guidance for noise and light.
To address a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are aware of the risks of noise and light for the most vulnerable in society, in particular the risk groups facing other health inequalities. Current policy is designed to manage the effects of noise and light across all of society. Consideration of noise is built into the planning system. We must balance the effects of noise against the economic, social and health benefits of connectivity and the availability of goods and services.
Key points about aircraft noise were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The Government are committed to minimising the effects of aviation noise while promoting the benefits we all enjoy. The Government set noise controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, though they are clearly not low enough for the noble and right reverend Lord. These include restrictions on night flying. We believe that, at other airports, noise controls should be agreed locally. We work in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s balanced approach to aircraft noise management, which prioritises the reduction of noise at source through quieter aircraft followed by land use planning and management, noise abatement, operational procedures and operating restrictions. The Department for Transport is currently funding two studies: an aviation night noise effect study and an aviation noise attitude study. These will include elements of research into non-acoustic factors, an area in which the committee showed interest. The findings of these studies will feed into policy development. The most recent survey of noise attitudes, in 2014, showed that annoyance towards aviation noise was occurring at lower noise levels than had been seen in previous UK studies.
Let me address a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about established independent committees. Both noise and light cover a wide spectrum of expertise. Given the many possible areas of interaction between both noise and light and our human experience, in addition to the interactions with other species, flexibility must be maintained to draw the most appropriate expertise into individual areas of research, rather than relying on a fixed group of individuals with particular expertise to embody all necessary knowledge across the board. There is already a mature network of collaborations between departments, agencies and independent experts, in addition to the Defra-led IGCB(N).
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked about heat pumps. In November 2023, the Government published an independent review of air source heat pump noise emissions, permitted development guidance and regulations. The research suggests that heat pumps are generally quiet and that noise complaints are rare. The review produced recommendations for changes to English permitted development rights and the microgeneration certification scheme noise assessment document, which DLUHC and the MCS respectively consulted on this year. No changes are proposed to the maximum permissible noise levels for heat pumps. We are working with the MCS to strengthen the noise assessment document. The proposed changes to PDRs will provide greater flexibility for heat pump installations and allow more households to benefit from PDRs without compromising the current noise limits. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain committed to the rollout of low-carbon alternatives such as heat pumps.
To address a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of course I agree that it is vital to divert people away from ill health and that that must remain an absolute priority for the Government. It not only saves the taxpayer money but has a much wider societal benefit. People will not suffer from the lack of light deprivation that my noble friend Lord Randall will be subject to when he is in hospital; we wish him a speedy recovery.
Tackling noise at source points is absolutely vital. Lower speed limits are a matter for local authorities, and there has been a lot of work happening on that. I am a quieter-road-surface geek. The M4 went through the area I used to represent and on behalf of constituents I managed to ensure that, when it is resurfaced, it is with a porous, quieter type of tarmac, which you notice as a driver but more importantly as a local person. We want to see more of that. The Government are putting more money into repairing potholes, and work is being done to address rail noise. An enormous amount of resource is being put in to encourage people to walk and cycle as much as possible.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Randall put his name down to speak. He made an excellent speech, showing his passion for the natural environment. Bat-friendly lights is what I will take away from here. His work with the CPRE to show that technology can be our friend is really important.
I will finish by addressing a point raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, who is well known for his love of poetry. We should all understand a little more his phrase, “healing silence”. A friend of mine who had a military career alongside me is now a Jesuit priest—it is quite a change—and gets to spend 40 days a year in silence. He says it is one of the most enriching experiences you can have. It is not something I shall do in a hurry, but I will go silent now because I have spoken for too long.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today for their thoughtful and valuable comments. It has been hugely encouraging to hear the broad consensus throughout the Committee on the importance of noise and artificial light. I make it clear that we are treating both noise and light pollution with due seriousness and welcome the support shown here.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I too thank everyone for their insightful contributions to this debate. It has been fascinating to hear about issues ranging from lighting in hospitals to turtles and volcanoes, right through to heat pumps.
I thank the Minister for his response. It has been good to hear of progress. Like him, we on my committee were delighted to hear about the noise modelling developments in Defra. They are very welcome, and it is wonderful to hear that they are award-winning. I am still disappointed to hear that intermittency only “may” be incorporated, and we urge Defra and the Minister to drive that forward as a crucial part of understanding the impacts of noise on stress and health.
Like the Minister, we agree that the noise expert group is excellent. We very much think that there could be an excellent light expert group, and we still do not understand the reasons why an equivalent would not be appropriate. I was disappointed to hear that Defra still feels that a noise reduction target is not yet feasible and that it might have perverse outcomes. I fear that that is being pushed down what I hope is an increasingly quiet road.
Like the Minister, we recognise the benefits of light. I am glad to say that we have many women on the Select Committee and many of us recognise the benefits of light at night in city centres when we are trying to get home from sittings in Parliament. It is good to hear that the Government are not standing still, and we are very positive about the round-table event to identify priorities for light, and the work with other countries to look at best practice. It is very good to hear that the Minister thinks that 60 years is too long to get to light mapping for the UK.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
I misheard; I apologise. It is good to hear that he thinks six years is too long; that is even more encouraging. I was worried that 60 years was quite a long time. It was also good to hear about the UKHSA’s working group on a UK lighting strategy. Those are all welcome developments.
However, the Minister said that we need evidence before we can change policy, but without evidence, I do not know how it is clear that policy is working. Without having information from local authorities on complaints about noise and light, I do not know how Defra can know that its policies in that area are working. As an engineer, I have to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also said: if we do not measure it, we cannot manage it. If we do not know what our targets are, it is hard to know whether we are progressing. I am afraid that it still seems rather wishful thinking, when the environment plan says that the Government
“must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively”.
Even with the welcome improvements the Minister has outlined, I do not believe that we can honestly say that noise and light pollution are being managed effectively. I commend the report to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Porter of Fulwood
Introduction: Baroness Hazarika
Rural Crime
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Shrewsbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in tackling rural crime.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as a retired farmer and a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, since 2010, overall incidents of crime have come down by 55% on a like-for-like basis. The Government are committed to tackling rural crime. Decisions on deployment of police resources are a matter for chief constables and locally elected police and crime commissioners. However, the Government set up the National Rural Crime Unit to help police secure specialist operational support, develop bespoke approaches and share best practice.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Rural theft cost the UK £49.5 million in 2022 and that overall trend is increasing exponentially today. Fly-tipping continues to be the most prolific form of rural crime. Is my noble friend satisfied that the punishments meted out to those who commit rural crime—if indeed they are caught—provide an effective deterrent? Does he agree with me that the results of the recent election of police and crime commissioners provide an opportunity for those elected to prove their support for rural issues, especially in the fight against rural crime?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend made a couple of very good points. First, the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 was given Royal Assent in July last year. Secondary legislation is needed before it comes into force and work has begun on the necessary regulations, with a view to hearing debates in Parliament in this Session. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been some progress on equipment theft; in fact, there was a story this morning in the Daily Telegraph and commendations go to Kent and Thames Valley Police for having arrested seven people relating to a hoard of over 1,000 suspected stolen items. It is not really my place to comment on sentencing, but I do think that significant progress is being made.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will either the Minister or those in his department have a specific meeting with the newly re-elected police commissioner for Dyfed Powys, Dafydd Llywelyn, who represents one of the most rural areas in the whole of England and Wales? There have been specific crimes in that area that need investigation and possibly increased powers to deal with them. Will he give such a commitment?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would of course be very happy to meet the said gentleman. Let me go into the details of the National Rural Crime Unit a little. It was established in January 2023, with a grant of £300,000. It is working and was set up with a significant input from the National Farmers’ Union, as noble Lords will be aware. The unit has made a real difference; Farmers Weekly reported on 25 April:
“They have absolutely changed the playing field in terms of policing”.
So the first port of call should be to superintendent Andrew Huddleston in that unit, which is doing great work.
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 congratulate the hugely experienced David Allen on his election as crime commissioner for Cumbria. With 47 million visitors to the Lakes annually and an associated increase in rural crime, will Ministers respond to his early call for resources to fund a major expansion in the automatic number plate recognition programme? We need it to cover our arterial road system, in particular the A66 and A69. As a matter of note, Vauxhall in London has more of these cameras than the entire county of Cumbria.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
On resources, there are now over 149,000 police officers in England and Wales, which is a higher number than any time before. The Government have also confirmed a total police funding settlement of up to £18.4 billion next year, which is an increase of £842 million. On how the money is spent locally, the noble Lord will be aware that those are very much local decisions, but I hear what he says and he made some interesting points.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I am a member of the APPG on metal theft and we have identified and reported on the enormous and growing scale of metal theft in rural areas, which of course has a massive impact on rural communities. Church roofs are stolen; a kilometre or more of copper cable is extracted from the local comms system, taking out telephone networks; and so on. Such crime is overwhelmingly committed, we heard in evidence, by organised criminal gangs. They are rarely caught and rarely held to account. Does the Minister think the police have the right strategies and tactics for handling organised crime in rural areas?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes some very good points. As he will be aware, operational decisions are taken locally, so that is a matter for chief constables in conversation and association with their police and crime commissioners. But plenty of national resources are available, as I have already highlighted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the figures that the Minister just gave us, the National Farmers’ Union Mutual says that 80% of its members have reported disruption from crime in their areas. One specific ask from the National Farmers’ Union Mutual is for improved protection to be given by extending the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act to include GPS theft from farmed vehicles. Will the Government consider doing that as a matter of urgency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is a very good point. We still have to commence the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, as he knows, and a call for evidence went out last summer seeking views on the secondary legislation, as required. That would be the appropriate place for making these points and discussing this. It has been targeted at agricultural and construction sectors—manufacturers, dealers, retailers and so on. I wait to see what the results of that call for evidence deliver, but I think the noble Lord makes a very good point—and, going back to the story about Kent that I referenced earlier, it was because of a GPS tracker that these people were caught.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, it is recognised that one niche area of rural crime by organised crime groups is laundering money through events such as illegal hare coursing, which is causing a huge problem. We were very grateful for the recent support of the Government in trying to bring an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, but is the Minister sure that the new police and crime commissioners not only understand the problem but have the right training in place so the law can be implemented?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
First, I commend the right reverend Prelate on his work in introducing the amendment to that particular Bill. It came into force on 1 August 2022 and, without his efforts, I do not think it would have happened. Hare coursing is not a notifiable offence, but the statistics I have are very encouraging. There has been a 60% reduction in the poaching of both hare and deer over the course of the 2022-23 season. The National Rural Crime Unit informs us that there has been an increased use of criminal protection notices when used alongside the new measures, including those involved with hare coursing. I was very pleased to hear about the successful prosecution of two individuals in Lincolnshire last week for hare coursing. So, it would seem to bear out that enough work is being done, but of course I will follow up and, if there is more to say, I will come back to the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we hear more in the media about crimes in urban areas and cities due to the numbers. However, many rural crimes are serious. Cuts in bus services and the decimation of youth services have left young people adrift. Young people are vulnerable to predation by criminal drug gangs running county lines. Prevention is always better than cure. Why have the Government abandoned vulnerable young people in rural areas?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, that was more of a statement than a question and I do not think the Government have abandoned rural young people.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, Julia Mulligan, our very good North Yorkshire police and crime commissioner, brought out a report five years ago about the wide gap in support between rural and urban victims of domestic abuse. That report, Captive & Controlled, stated:
“Abuse lasts, on average, 25% longer in the most rural areas”.
Can my noble friend assure me that this gap has narrowed, and how has this been achieved?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a good question, but the findings of the Captive & Controlled report are not easily replicated, so it is difficult to give him the assurance he seeks that the gap is narrowing. But teams in the Home Office and Defra have sought to understand the additional challenges that victims in rural communities face, and we have invested to help address those. That includes funding for an older persons’ rural domestic abuse practitioner in Northumberland and support for children, young people and families in rural communities in Shropshire and Devon. I would also say that the duty to collaborate we are introducing through the Victims and Prisoners Bill will further help police forces understand and commission to meet the needs of the victims in their communities.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, would the Government agree with me that there is a direct relationship between crime and poverty? What are we doing, really, about all the things that are happening in the countryside that are stripping people of jobs? It is very, very difficult to get a job in the countryside that pays enough for you to live on the wage. It is a low-wage economy.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That may be the case, but there are also lots of good opportunities in the country and, of course, we live in a world where the gig economy gives people opportunities to live pretty much wherever they want.
Uganda: Anti-Homosexuality Act
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cashman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Uganda regarding its Anti-Homosexuality Act.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act has increased violence and discrimination against LGBT+ people. The UK has made its opposition clear to all levels of the Ugandan Government. On 3 April, the Ugandan Constitutional Court struck down some provisions. However, the legislation remains, including the death penalty for so-called aggravated homosexuality. The Deputy Foreign Secretary met the Ugandan Justice Minister on 3 April and underlined the importance of ensuring that people are free from persecution regardless of sexuality and stressed our concern at this legislation.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the action they have taken so far, but they can and must do more. The Ugandan law criminalises even those who supply services to LGBT people and, as the Minister said, people face the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality or 20 years in prison merely for being homosexual. The situation is dire and worsening, with arrests, people going into hiding, blackmail and service providers closing. Therefore, I ask the Government to mirror the actions taken by the United States, Canada and the World Bank: targeted sanctions on named individuals and on access to individual assets held in the UK and an immediate pause on development support that could be used by discriminatory actors. Finally, they should call on Uganda to end implementing the law with forced anal examinations. Such barbaric human rights abuses must be vigorously denounced.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will start with the last point: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this and many other related issues. This is an appalling situation for minorities in Uganda and is part of a pattern that, unfortunately, we are seeing across many sub-Saharan African countries. No one in Uganda can be under any illusions about the UK’s position on this. We have raised it at every level of government and we will continue to do so. We do not discuss openly what plans we have on sanctions, but we will look at all opportunities to continue to raise this and ensure that the Government of Uganda, the Parliament of Uganda and those proposing this legislation understand how devastating it is and what enormous damage has been done to Uganda’s reputation in the world. I will continue to work with the noble Lord and others to ensure we are taking every action we can.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, just said about Uganda, but should we not also be concerned about the position in many other countries around the world? There is a terrible worldwide toll of over 600,000 deaths a year from HIV and AIDS. Should we not recognise that the threat of unjustified heavy sentences can add to the problem by preventing people coming forward for treatment and add to the stigma that is already around AIDS?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord has done so much work in this area, and of course we agree with him. The problem with this kind of legislation is that it deters people from seeking the medical help that they need for what is now a curable disease, maybe to the point where it is not curable for them because they have been put off seeking the support they need. The UK will continue, through its ODA programme, to make sure it supports proper access to medical services. That will be dealt with on an absolutely fair and open basis and not in the discriminatory way that these laws promote.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister not agree that one thing that could make a really big difference to this appalling situation would be a change in regime and free and fair elections? He will have noted that the European Parliament concluded that the last elections were neither free nor fair and, in fact, were violent. What more can we do to ensure there is multi-party democracy? Will he find time to meet the outstanding new leader of the opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, who is a brave young politician who deserves our support?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We will work with any Government of Uganda; they are important allies and members of the Commonwealth, and they are doing important work elsewhere in Africa for peace and security. However, it is only through having a good, friendly relationship with a country like that that we can state how appalled we are at legislation such as this. Obviously, we want to promote free and fair elections at every stage, but the Government of Uganda are the Government of Uganda. They are doing great things in support of peace and security in Africa, which we support, but this is an unacceptable regression on freedoms and personal rights.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, it is the voice not only of government but of civil society that needs to be heard. I have welcomed the Government’s contribution to the Commonwealth Equality Network in the past, but we can do more to ensure faith voices and trade union voices are heard. What is the Minister’s department doing to work with the international trade union movement, which has very good policies on this, to influence people in those countries so it is seen as not just a UK Government action but a civil society action that is appalled at these laws?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think I can reassure the noble Lord. I met with our high commissioner to Uganda this week, and she gave me details of many of the projects we are doing with civil society organisations. For example, some of our overseas development assistance money goes to fund grass-roots efforts to shift attitudes on gender-based violence. There are many other things that we are doing. He is right that many faith-based organisations are key to this. One of the unfortunate drivers of this legislation has been promoted by an evangelical view of Christianity, and not one, for many of us would who ascribe to Christian values, of compassion and kindness; it seems to be one of quite the reverse. I know that many faith-based organisations want to have nothing to do with that and want to try to correct it. We will work with anybody who seeks to support people affected by this legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I agree with the Minister. On a visit to Kampala before the pandemic, I met with the leadership of the Anglican community—my visit was about the abolition of the death penalty—who said that they would support my work on the death penalty, as long as I did not campaign on LGBT rights; the death penalty is now supported by that community. I am grateful that Lambeth Palace has disassociated itself from that. Will the Minister agree that the development partnership agreement the UK has with Uganda, which includes the sentence
“We will also use a full range of tools to defend democratic norms and the rights of excluded groups, for example the LGBT+ community”,
is no longer operable because those groups, which we have been supporting, now face the very criminal penalties that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, indicated? Will the Minister further agree that our relationship with Uganda cannot continue as it has? We need a formal review of our development relationship, and we need to state to the Government of Uganda that, in our view, their Act is inconsistent with the Commonwealth charter. We cannot carry on as we have before.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our bilateral ODA, which is due to increase quite considerably this financial year, goes not to the Government of Uganda but to very specific areas of need, such as strengthening health systems and empowering women. We prevented 2.4 million unintended pregnancies through family planning advice, increased modern contraceptive use by 5.7%, and supported 600,000 women to access electricity through GET FiT, our renewable energy programme. Crucially, as I said earlier, we are funding grass-roots efforts to shift attitudes on gender-based violence and engaging women’s rights groups to defend against discrimination. Our ODA programmes are constantly under review, but it is important that we continue to support those kinds of efforts in Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa where we see a regression on LGBTQ rights.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Government of Uganda are a member of the Commonwealth, as are so many other nations that, unfortunately, have very similar policies. As has been mentioned, the Commonwealth charter commits Uganda to compliance with international human rights laws, in particular relating to equality. Will the Minister and his department do what they can to ensure this important topic is put on the agenda for the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which is in Samoa in October?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that very important point. I spoke to the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth on this subject and we have agreed to continue to discuss it in the lead-up to CHOGM. We want to make sure that human rights and the very values that underpin the Commonwealth are reflected in the work of that important meeting.
AI: Intellectual Property Rights
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect intellectual property rights in relation to artificial intelligence, in particular large language models, since discontinuing plans to develop a code of practice.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Boston Ltd.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, this is a complex and challenging area. We strongly support AI innovation in the UK, but this cannot be at the expense of our world-leading creative industries. Our goal is that both sectors should be able to grow together in partnership. We are currently working with DCMS to develop a way forward on copyright and AI. We will engage closely with interested stakeholders as we develop our approach.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, our great UK creatives—musicians who make such sweet sounds where otherwise there may be silence; writers who fill the blank page with words of meaning that move us; our photographers; our visual artists—are a creative community contributing billions to the UK economy, growing at twice the rate of the UK economy. In the light of this, why are the Government content for their work, their IP and their copyright to be so disrespected and unprotected in the face of artificial intelligence?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the important point he raises, particularly stressing the importance to the United Kingdom of the creative industry, which contributes 6% of our GVA every year. The Government are far from content with this position and share the frustrations and concerns of many across the sector in trying to find a way forward on the AI and copyright issue. As I say, it is challenging and deeply complex. No jurisdiction anywhere has identified a truly satisfactory solution to this issue, but we continue to work internationally and nationally to seek one.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. As I said in my letter last week to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Communications and Digital Select Committee, the Government’s reluctance to take a clear position on copyright in the context of AI and large language models is leading to
“problematic business models … becoming entrenched and normalised”.
The Government urgently need to take a clear position, and soon. On a practical basis, what support are they giving to market-led initiatives to improve licensing deals for news publishers and to get collective licensing regimes off the ground, to ensure that smaller rights-holders are also not left behind?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend and her committee for that important letter. First, we must not underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the issues involved in resolving this question; there are very problematic jurisdictional and technical issues. That said, the Government greatly welcome any arrangement between private sector organisations finding a way forward on this; we can all learn a great deal from the success of those arrangements. We believe that a collaborative way forward on both sides, in partnership, will be a very important part of the eventual solution.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was right to say that we should recognise that AI can bring opportunities to the creative sector. For example, nearly a decade after a near-fatal stroke, the musician Randy Travis has released a new song featuring AI-generated vocals. This has been done with his consent and the involvement of his record label, but elsewhere, as we have heard, AI tools are being widely used to create music in the style of established artists, despite no permission having been given and a total lack of creative control on the part of those artists and their representatives. Can the Minister outline how the Government are actively involving musicians, artists and writers in determining how best to protect that very precious intellectual property, while allowing creativity to flourish? I echo the noble Baroness’s theme: this is an urgent matter and we would like to hear how the Government will address it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The issue raised by the noble Baroness is of deep concern to everybody. As I say, there are some very serious problems, not least regarding the jurisdiction where any alleged infringement may or may not have taken place. Of course, any jurisdiction that implements rules one way or the other will find that the AI work she sets out so compellingly is simply offshored elsewhere. The Government engage very closely with creative groups, including fair remuneration groups for musicians and many others, and will continue to do so, looking for a solution to this difficult problem.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the noble Viscount told the Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee that he did not
“believe that infringing the rights of copyright holders is a necessary precondition for developing successful AI”.
Does he still hold to that view, and does he accept that it should be the clearly stated view of the Government?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do not believe that the AI industry, in the long term, will require long-standing copyright infringement for its success. That is and continues to be the Government’s view; any unauthorised use or copying of intellectual property or copyrighted material is an infringement. Of course, there is a range of exceptions to that, and there is the possibility of giving permission for that to happen. It becomes a very complex area, both legally and technologically, but, as I say, we continue to look for a solution.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am most grateful. AI is already creating IP of its own, but it is unable to register it because, by law, a human being needs to register IP. In trying to create a legislative bottle into which this genie could be reinserted, have the Government taken that into account?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting question. The laws surrounding the copyrighting of machine-generated content are getting fairly elderly now and certainly need to be looked at as part of the overall position going forward.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, it is clear from the questions being raised that this is a very complex area, not least because we are bringing together the creative and legal industries and the technologists who are programming, developing and trying to stay ahead of the curve on this. What plans do the two departments involved in developing the code of practice have urgently to engage with industry—especially over the summer, when there will be a number of events and activities, including London Tech Week—so that we can more quickly develop the code and other requirements?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if I gaze into a crystal ball for a moment and predict that the eventual solution to this will involve three elements: first, some modifications to our copyright legislation; secondly, some use of technology to enable a solution; and thirdly, internationally accepted standards of interoperability in any eventual solution. We engage widely with techUK and other technology partners, but above all we engage extensively internationally. I point to our specific engagements with the World Intellectual Property Organization, the UN agency the ITU, and of course the follow-up to the AI Safety Summit, which we are co-hosting in Seoul in a couple of weeks’ time.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to compel AI companies to implement measures to monitor and report IP infringements?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
One of the principles we set out in our AI White Paper is transparency. That principle—repeated across the OECD and in the EU’s AI Act—will go a long way towards doing what the noble Baroness asks. There are, though, a number of technical difficulties in implementing transparency—not legally, from our side, but rather, the computer science problems associated with processing the very large quantities of data required to generate true transparency.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, a lot of people are excited by the prospects for AI. Indeed, this country is in the lead in developing such policies and the associated opportunities. As one of those involved in preparing the GDPR in Brussels, I am concerned that the opportunities and excitement associated with the use of AI must be balanced against the protection of individual privacy and the rights of corporate structures and individuals who are worried about the abuses that might occur unless legislators are up to date and moving fast enough to deal with these matters.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My noble friend makes some important points: AI must advance on the back of well-executed data protection. Let me take the opportunity to thank him for his outstanding contributions during the recently completed Committee stage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We continue to share the goal that he set up.
NATO: French Nuclear Weapons
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with President Macron regarding the allocation of French nuclear weapons to NATO.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, French participation in NATO’s nuclear structures is a matter for France. None the less, we are pleased to see President Macron emphasising the European dimension to France’s deterrent. As the two European nuclear powers, the United Kingdom and France regularly discuss, and are increasing co-operation on, nuclear deterrence issues, to help safeguard European security, and the overall security of this important alliance.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the defence of Europe is reliant on NATO, not some half-baked EU military organisation. We are safe because of NATO—let us not fool ourselves. We allocate out nuclear weapons to NATO, which is under the US nuclear umbrella. France, of course, does not, although in 2020, 2022, and now this year President Macron has floated ideas about French nuclear weapons being allocated to some EU organisation—I am not yet clear what yet.
At what is a perilous time for our continent, with what is going on in Europe, this is not the time to play little political games about nuclear weapons—it is the time to focus very carefully on a nuclear umbrella that has been the underpinning of our NATO protection. In our discussions with President Macron, we need to make sure that he understands this, but in the nicest possible way.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are always nice to President Macron and our friends across the channel. He raises a vital point. This is a key alliance and that is why, back in 1962, the United Kingdom was very clear about its independent nuclear deterrent and its use in terms of the European security question and in supporting the NATO alliance. We are having constructive engagement with France on the importance of European security, particularly in light of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We have strong engagement at various strategic and technical levels, and indeed through the TEUTATES agreement, which builds on technology and research capabilities. The co-operation is strong, and we also welcome the statement made in President Macron’s recent state of the Union address, in terms of both tone and substance.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree, in relation to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, that the unambiguous commitment by the United Kingdom and United States of their nuclear capability to NATO, and the clarity of purpose governing that commitment honoured by NATO, has been critical in maintaining the credibility of NATO as an effective defensive alliance? We should be very vigilant in ensuring that that stability is not threatened in any way.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend speaks with deep insight, and I totally agree with her. The strength of NATO is in the support of its membership—particularly those who have the capacity and capabilities. That is the message that we need to send today. As the noble Lord, Lord West, pointed out, it is particularly important, given the challenging times we currently face.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister. France’s nuclear policy is a sovereign matter, and a matter for the French Government. But we also strongly support the strength of co-operation between France and the United Kingdom on security and defence, and building on the Lancaster House treaties. The Minister mentioned the European dimension, which is a vital component of this—strengthening and co-operating with NATO. Does the Minister support Labour’s call for a new security pact with the EU, so that we can embrace all these issues, to complement and strengthen NATO?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one thing we are absolutely clear on is that we want to work with key partners across NATO to ensure a strengthened alliance. That underlies the independent deterrence the UK brings, when it comes to the issue of nuclear deterrence as well. It is important that we co-operate with all key partners, but NATO is the bedrock of our security alliance, and that is where the United Kingdom’s focus is.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister as shocked as I am to hear a Question from the noble Lord that does not include the word “frigates”?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
More seriously, does NATO agree that there is such a thing as a tactical nuclear weapon, which is referred to by the President of Russia? I do not believe it does, but could he enlighten us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords I fear that the noble Lord might be tempting the noble Lord, Lord West, to come in again. On his serious point, we need to be very clear that loose language is extremely dangerous in any context, and it is particularly dangerous at the current time. We need responsibility and real recognition—and the NPT treaty was signed by Russia in 2022, but it then went to war in Ukraine a month later. We must make sure those principles are upheld by all responsible powers across the world, and those who do not need to be challenged quite directly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just spoken about the importance of language, and that was clearly addressed to the President of Russia. When having conversations with the President of France, are His Majesty’s Government also mindful of the need to suggest, perhaps in private, that we need to be a little bit careful about the use of language about boots on the ground beyond Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a long-standing Minister at the Foreign Office, the brilliance of our British diplomacy is well known to me, and I assure the noble Baroness that we use those very terms in our engagements with all partners. I come back to the important point about language: it is key. Language matters, and every word that is uttered is monitored, reviewed and analysed very significantly. I say again that our relationship with France is extremely strong; we share many key priorities, including on the defence of Europe and standing together in unity against Russia when it comes to Ukraine.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, was it not a pity that President Macron talked about boots on the ground in Ukraine, when what is needed is air power, if we are going to win this war? Without it, we will lose it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not the spokesman for President Macron—I speak for the United Kingdom Government. What is important is that we show unity of words, purpose and action, when it comes to fighting Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, our military capability, conventional and nuclear, depends crucially on industrial capacity, which it is clear that we in this country have allowed to atrophy to a dangerously low level. What progress are the Government making in increasing the capacity of nuclear enterprise in this country to meet the demands of the future—both military and civilian?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are making significant progress in that regard. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord welcomed the Prime Minister setting out our bolstering of the defence budget, firing up much of our industrial base, including £10 billion over the next decade on munitions production, which will also generate new jobs and investment, modernising our Armed Forces and of course backing Ukraine in the illegal war that has been waged on it by Russia.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, would not collaboration in defence with President Macron be much more constructive if we used the well-established channels of the entente cordiale, which are over 100 years old now, and ignored the observations, for example, of Liz Truss, who is not sure whether France is a friend or a foe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have reached agreements through established channels, including the Lancaster House agreement. When we go back to exchanges going back to John Major’s time with the then president of France, there are established channels across defence and security. These are vital, and we need to ensure that they are strengthened at this crucial time for Europe.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, President Macron warned in a recent interview, commenting on European security:
“Things can fall apart very quickly”.
Nowhere is this surer to happen than in the western Balkans region—and that would have a devastating effect on the people of the region and the wider security, and it would enable Russia to open a second front somewhere else. Does the Minister agree that the European force, EUFOR, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, will soon need to be reinforced by NATO troops?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend has great insight on this issue, and I agree with her on the importance of ensuring stability in the Balkans. We do not want to see any repeat of the tragic and abhorrent war that ripped apart Bosnia-Herzegovina. The threat is very clear from Russia, as are the increasing threats from the likes of Mr Dodik when it comes to Republika Srpska. We need to stand together in support, both politically and militarily, to see what can be done, and not just across the Balkans. As my noble friend knows, we are engaged directly in support in Kosovo as well.
Skills: Importance for the UK Economy and Quality of Life
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To move that this House takes note of the importance of skills for the success of the United Kingdom economy and for the quality of life of individuals.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, skills are central to the future of our young people and central to the future of our nation. Every one of the main challenges we face depends for its resolution on our having the right skills, now and in the future. Yet it seems to me that we, including in this House, do not focus enough on how to develop, maintain and enhance the skills needed to achieve net zero; to become a science and technology superpower; to realise the potential of AI; to meet our energy needs; to defend ourselves in an increasingly fractious world; to improve the quality of our health and care systems; to build enough new homes; to upgrade our transport infrastructure; to support our brilliant creative sector; and to pursue numerous other aims. All of these depend on skills.
My belief in the importance of skills is partly personal. I emerged from a very privileged education with an Oxford classics degree, an impressive academic record, virtually no practical skills and little idea of what sort of career to pursue. I believe that we can and should do better for our young people. I am also struck by the contrast between attitudes to education and skills today, and the burning desire to improve themselves that led some 200,000 Welsh people to learn to read the Bible in the circulating schools set up by Griffith Jones of Llanddowror, in my home county of Carmarthen, in the 18th century.
I am absolutely delighted to have obtained this debate to explore how we can better meet our skills needs, and greatly look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords who are speaking, not least the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Marks of Hale, and of course the response of the Minister. I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for its briefing for the debate, for additional research that Thomas Weston has done for me, and to the many organisations which have deluged me with helpful and insightful briefings, to which I fear I shall do less than justice in the time available.
Virtually every sector of our economy currently faces worker shortages; so-called skills-shortage vacancies have risen from about 91,500 in 2011 to over 531,000 in 2022—up from 16% to 36% of all vacancies. A recent British Chambers of Commerce survey found that 73% of organisations are facing skills shortages. We have stubbornly high levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training: 12% of young people, some 850,000, are NEET. At the same time, employers complain that young people leaving education lack work-ready skills: 60% of employers struggle to find the right technical skills and 50% cannot find the transferable skills that they need. UK productivity seems to be stuck in a rut and falling behind that of other countries. Teacher recruitment and retention is not keeping up with demand. We face a serious skills challenge.
What sorts of skills do we need? I know other noble Lords will talk about specific skills, so I will just outline some of the categories needed. First, all of us need basic skills, including literacy, numeracy, digital literacy and no doubt oracy, which had not been invented when I was at school—your Lordships may have reason to regret that. Literacy and numeracy are, rightly, required elements of the school curriculum, although the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee, on which I served, argued that there should be more functional alternatives to the current requirement to achieve a level 4 GCSE pass, which has a highly damaging effect on the subsequent educational progress of the one-third of young people who fail to attain it.
Secondly, there are specific work or job-related skills, including technical and practical skills, for which training may be delivered by FE colleges, independent training providers or employers themselves. The much-needed green skills belong in this category.
Thirdly, there are the skills variously described as life skills, soft skills or transferable skills. The Skills Builder Partnership identifies eight essential skills: speaking; listening; problem-solving; creativity; aiming high; staying positive; teamwork; and leadership. It has developed a universal framework resource for teaching and assessing these, which is being used in a growing number of schools. These are increasingly important in the modern world, in both our work and personal lives. They are also the skills which employers are crying out for most of all: 57% of employers say they value transferable over technical skills. Employers find that the education system prepares students well for academic progression, rather than vocational pathways, on which there is insufficient focus. Yet 98% of teachers recognise essential skills as important for their learners’ employment opportunities and 86% agree that the national curriculum should include them.
The Local Government Association identifies no fewer than 49 national employment and skills-related schemes or services across England. They spend an estimated £20 billion in total and are managed by at least nine Whitehall departments and agencies. The Minister will have a lot to cover in her response.
I will briefly mention three initiatives within the remit of the DfE about which I feel strongly. Apprenticeships are a key part of skills policy. The apprenticeship levy is an important means of securing employer funding for skills training. There has been a disappointing decline in apprenticeship starts in recent years—from more than 509,000 in 2015-16 to about 337,000 in 2022-23. I will highlight two concerns about the current system. First, the number of apprenticeships for young people aged under 19 has declined even more steeply—from more than 131,000 to less than 78,000, as has the number of entry-level—level 2—apprenticeships, which are most suitable for many in this age group. The levy, in effect, incentivises employers to offer more expensive higher-level apprenticeships, often to upskill or reskill existing employees. This is also important, of course, but the balance seems wrong and needs to be adjusted to ensure a greater intake of younger apprentices, especially at level 2.
Secondly, there is a long-standing need to reduce the barriers of cost, complexity and bureaucracy which deter small employers from offering apprenticeships. Many employers are calling for greater flexibility as to how levy funds can be spent—for example to cover other forms of accredited training. The Government have made some improvements, but take-up by SMEs is still much too low.
A successful skills system depends on the availability of first-rate careers education and information for everyone from primary school age to adulthood. Much progress has been made in recent years, thanks largely to the efforts of the Careers & Enterprise Company and other careers organisations. Some 92% of schools are now part of local career hubs. More than 3,000 careers leaders have been trained, and the average number of the eight Gatsby benchmarks of good career guidance achieved by schools has risen from 2.1 to 5.5 in the last five years. Encouragingly, schools serving the most disadvantaged groups perform above the average. There is still much more to do in improving the quality of careers provision and business engagement, especially at local level and outside schools, tackling barriers to progression into jobs, and firmly establishing careers education as the bridge between young people and business.
The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 led to the creation of local skills improvement plans across all 38 areas of England—most of them are led by chambers of commerce—which set out actionable priorities to tackle local skills needs. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, who is the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, will talk more about them. These should be a powerful tool for understanding and addressing skills needs and opportunities across England. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how implementation of the plans will be monitored and assessed. Should there not also be an NSIP—a national skills improvement plan—to ensure that, taken together with LSIPs, they are meeting identified national skills priorities and that programmes at national and local government levels are effectively co-ordinated?
Later speakers will doubtless mention other skills-related government initiatives, such as T-levels, the lifelong learning entitlement and the advanced British standard. We will also hear about some of the Labour Party’s proposals, including for a national skills taskforce. My impression is that existing initiatives add up to rather less than the sum of their parts, rather than a coherent and comprehensive package for tackling skills needs. They seem fragmented and lacking clarity about how different schemes are supposed to work together.
There are also many excellent organisations outside government helping to develop young people’s skills. The National Citizen Service, along with the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, recently launched a report in Parliament on the enrichment activities they offer. The Scouts seek to empower young people with skills for life. WorldSkills UK, which is this morning announcing the young people selected to represent Team UK at this year’s Skills Olympics in Lyon, described one of its aims as “championing future skills” and helping the UK become a “world-class skills economy” so as to remain globally competitive. I say amen to that.
This Government do not seem keen on strategies, but no well-run organisation of any size would be without a human resources strategy. We, as a country, need a skills strategy to fulfil a similar role. What might such a strategy look like? First, skills should be recognised as a priority for any Government—national, devolved or local—and every area of policy needs to include provision for developing required skills. Secondly, the strategy should be evidence-based, built on sound data about current and anticipated skills needs, shortages and opportunities. There needs to be a process for monitoring and reporting on implementation and progress.
Thirdly, the strategy should be comprehensive and joined up across relevant government departments—I mentioned the nine that have programmes in this area—and across the nation, taking account both of local plans and of regional and national priorities, and seeking complementarity with the devolved nations, from which there may be valuable lessons to be learned.
Fourthly, and very importantly, the strategy should be matched by an education system fully aligned with its goals at all levels from primary to tertiary and beyond. This must recognise and seek to meet the need for skilled technicians and tradespeople, as well as university graduates, and give all of them a strong grounding in basic and essential skills. It is high time for the holy grail of parity of esteem between academic and technical/vocational education to be seized—although I am not sure whether that is the right thing to do with a grail. Of course, the implications of a skills strategy for education deserve a debate of their own.
Fifthly, a strategy should incorporate measures to increase teacher motivation and recognition by allowing them greater flexibility, to teach in a way that best suits their own abilities, experiences and interests. Highly skilled, highly motivated and highly regarded teachers must be a central plank of any skills strategy.
Sixthly, employers must be deeply engaged, both in defining and in delivering the strategy, including by ensuring that their own skills needs are recognised, and through offering work experience placements and apprenticeships.
Finally, the strategy should be vigorously promoted and publicised to individuals, employers, teachers, schools, parents and everyone concerned with skills. Such a strategy should aim to raise skills much higher up the public agenda and recapture some of the passion for education and skills that drove the success of Griffith Jones’s schools. Developing and delivering it would be neither easy nor quick and would depend on attracting the co-operation and commitment of all parties with a stake in raising skills—which is basically all of us. It might be supported by a high-profile campaign to build enthusiasm for pursuing the skills that young people and our economy need and to incentivise and celebrate investment in skills. The DfE’s existing Skills for Life campaign seems lacking in ambition and impact.
I am conscious that I have barely scratched the surface of the issues we are debating. I have every confidence that subsequent speakers will fill many of the gaps. I hope that this House, with the benefit of all the wisdom and expertise that it embodies, will continue to work doggedly with government, education institutions, employers and others in pursuit of policies to make the UK a world leader in skills.
When Napoleon supposedly described us as a nation of shopkeepers, I believe it was meant more as a recognition of our commercial talents than as an insult. Now is the time to apply our talents to a new challenge—to show ourselves to the world as a nation of skills builders. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare on initiating this debate. He and I meet from time to time at conferences on technical education around the country. I admire his determination; he never gives up, he just keeps bashing on.
Today, over 30 speakers in this House want to speak on technical education, including two maiden speakers. We have a rich knowledge of education in this House, but we do not hold the Government to account on education in any effective way. Since 2010, there has been no significant debate in this House on the curriculum, assessment systems, FE colleges, sixth-form colleges or even universities. We need a Select Committee on education and training and my noble friend Lord Aberdare should be its chairman.
The Government’s record on technical education in schools has been abysmal since 2010. The amount of technical education has fallen; the annual number of apprentices has dropped for the last few years because the Government believe—or Michael Gove and Gibb believed—that there should be no technical education below 16 in our schools. I am afraid they have succeeded. By imposing Progress 8 and EBacc on the school system, they have virtually ended design and technology. There has been a drop of 80% in our schools. In the cultural subjects of drama, dance, performing arts, music and art, there has been a drop of 50%. The broad curriculum that I tried to introduce in the 1980s has disappeared totally. This is not acceptable; there has got to be a change.
Many years ago, the Labour Party gave Lord Dearing and me enough to start two university technical colleges. Cameron increased that to 12 and then to 24, and I am glad to say we now have 44 university technical colleges. They are among some of the best schools in the country. We have over 20,000 students and 85% of the colleges get “good” or “outstanding” Ofsteds. What is really dramatic is that our colleges’ level of youth unemployment is between 1% and 3%. As my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, the level of NEETs in the country is 12%; in disadvantaged areas such as Stoke and Newcastle, it is as high as 20%. We have 2%. We are getting two new colleges in the next 18 months, in Southampton and Doncaster. They are expensive—they will cost £25 million. I would like 100. I am not going to get 100 because, in the next 10 years, hardly any new schools will be built, because of declining rolls. It will be an era of closing schools, which will be very difficult to handle for whoever forms the next Government—closing schools is very tricky and very expensive.
In the UTC movement, we have devised a way of bringing technical education into ordinary schools. We want to introduce a sleeve of 14 to 18 technical education into an ordinary 11 to 18 year-old school. That sleeve will have its own classrooms, teachers and equipment and will be separate from the academic route. We will of course continue to teach English, maths and science—as academic subjects, they will probably be shared with the academic route—but there will be a technical route in the school. It will have separate examinations and will be supported by the local university and local companies.
The department has known about this scheme for over a year. We have found 10 schools that want to do it and the Secretary of State and the Minister have been provided with their details. We are waiting for a decision. I believe this will be the only way for whoever wins the next election to get technical education into schools. It means you have to abandon and scrap Progress 8 and EBacc. In the last two years, there have been seven reports advocating exactly that, including two from Select Committees in this House, which said that EBacc and Progress 8 should be abolished and that the exam system of GCSEs should be reduced dramatically and reformed, or even ended.
There is a letter in the Times today from the headmaster of Bedales, which is a very successful school, describing how it is slowly moving away from GCSEs altogether. There is a private school in west London, Latymer, which is going to offer only two GCSE exams in three years’ time—just English and maths. The rest are going to be assessed; the subjects will go on.
As a result of not having the pressure of exams in the summer term, you will get two extra teaching terms. The spring term is now all revision and the summer term is all exams. You abolish all that and you will get extra time for very interesting new subjects such as anthropology, philosophy, archaeology, the history of south-east Asia, graphic design and even the history of pop music. You can get that by abolishing the GCSE system. I would like to see it, but it is not going to happen.
I am holding in my hand an application from the Bede Academy, a school in Newcastle and one of the best in the north-east—each year they get some students into Russell group universities. Those in the Bede Academy want a sleeve specialising in engineering, energy and health. It is a very good 12-page thing. They worked out entirely the quote for the next three years: what sort of teachers they want and the cost of it, including the buildings. They have the strong support of Northumbria University on health, and to introduce the health changes they need £200,000. They also need two digital computing units to teach artificial intelligence and virtual reality, which are not taught at all in Newcastle’s schools. They want six engineering rooms, metal-working and welding workshops, mechatronics workshops, CAD workshops, laser cutting and 3D printer sites. They want all of that and they have put the cost at £1.5 million to £1.8 million.
This, Minister, is an enormous bargain. If you wanted to set up a technical college in Newcastle, it would cost £12 million to £15 million. This is for only £1.5 million to £1.8 million. Before I sit down—and I am about to sit down—I will give this application to the Minister. I do not know whether she has received it or read it. I will give it to her and I hope that, before she sits down, if she is listening to me, she will be able to say when she is going to give approval to it.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I give the noble Baroness the Minister the assurance that I will not repeat that party trick in a moment.
I stepped down from the Communications and Digital Select Committee just three months ago. It was an invigorating experience, spending three years looking at developments in the fields we were examining and interrogating various experts from the top of a number of industries and experiences. It seems that there is a paucity of contributors from that committee, so I bring to the attention of noble Lords an inkling of just two of the reports we brought out. Since the work has been done, I want to emphasise that we can refer to it at any time we like.
One report, on our creative future, was published just a year ago and there is a whole chapter on the skills that we need. Some 88% of employers in the creative occupations find it hard to recruit high-level skilled individuals, compared with 38% of employers across the economy. Someone we interrogated said that skills were currently the single biggest inhibitor of growth. Meanwhile, international competition for creative skills is growing, including creative, technical, cultural management and business skills, and this is likely to intensify. Those are just three or four allusions to a rich chapter that fleshes out the need for creative skills of all kinds in our creative industries, which make such an important contribution to the economy of our country. Since our country’s economy is well stated in the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—it is lovely to see him in his place and giving us the opportunity to discuss these things—we must draw attention to the fact that one sector of our economy is particularly hard hit by the absence of skills.
The other report to which I draw attention relates to fulfilling the second requirement of the Motion, which is for our personal development, and that is Digital Exclusion—or digital inclusion; which would we prefer? It is a fact that, for ordinary, everyday tasks, we lack the skills simply to do the things that are required of us. I left the house this morning, and my poor wife was coping with problems with our internet provider, needing to know language, to have patience and to entertain various options for which she was never trained, though she had a highly technical education and work pattern as a radiographer in the health industry. I myself have got yet again today what I regularly get, which is an imprecation from my bank to do internet banking. I utterly refuse, because I will not give the banks the opportunity to say that they have now mopped up all the remaining recidivists: people like me who will not modernise themselves or live in the modern world. I will say to my bankers that they should continue to send me my monthly paper statement, because that is an important thing for so many people.
We have heard that there has not been a properly developed strategy for skills since 2014, and it was spelled out just what needs to be in that strategy. One of the recurring things that we heard in all the committee meetings was that this need for skills branches out into so many aspects of ordinary, everyday living that we must have cross-departmental approaches to evolving this strategy. It is no good leaving it to the Department for Education, or science and technology or whatever it is. This impacts on the whole of our lives. It needs a dedicated body of people to look at this constantly in relation to the various departments of government. Formal cross-government evaluations seem to have stopped. They need to be reworked and rebegun.
The Government, of course, cannot be expected to solve everything, but they can achieve much by showing interest in driving change against clearly defined objectives. The committee said:
“We have no confidence that this is happening. Senior political leadership to drive joined-up concerted action is sorely needed”.
I could go on, but the reports are there. I place the underlying questions of my intervention in the hands of the Minister in the hope that she can give us some concrete evidence of progress in these areas. It will also reinforce my confidence that the work of our Select Committees gets heard and is implemented, and that their ideas are taken forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this debate so comprehensively on a subject where he and I regularly end up at the same meetings and with the same enthusiasms for the world of skills. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths: my home wifi has been down since Wednesday, and they tell me that they will bring somebody on Monday to sort it out. It is so infuriating; but that is enough of that. I warmly welcome the two maiden speakers, who have chosen a very good subject on which to cut their teeth in this House.
I, too, was on the recent Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee, where members strongly recommended that the Government’s obsession with knowledge needed to be tempered with the acquisition of skills. Few students would need algebra and geometry later in life, but they would all need financial literacy and computer skills. Few would need Shakespeare and the finer points of grammar—that is not to say that Shakespeare is not vitally important, of course—but all would need to be able to read, write and speak. We noted that oracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, featured very little in state schools, whereas independent schools were keen on public speaking and expressing oneself.
It is of concern that many heritage craft skills are endangered. They require patience and attention to detail, both of which are often missing in young people who are used to the instant responses of computers. Yet pottery, silversmithing and weaving give immense satisfaction, as indeed do stonemasonry, decorating, fashion, catering and floristry—a whole range. These are skills which require dedication; they contribute to the happiness and well-being of others, but they are seldom taught in schools. We hear from the University of the Arts that the creative industries generated a £108 billion in economic value in 2021 and grew more than one and a half times faster than the wider economy between 2010 and 2019, employing more than 2.3 million people—one in 14 jobs.
Colleges, which do the lion’s share of teaching skills, are too often sidelined by a Government who are obsessed with academia and with learning facts, not skills. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I graduated from Oxford with a passion for medieval French, which has never been of any use to me whatsoever later in life. Colleges and their hard-working tutors deserve a much better deal, given the key part that they play in generating the skills which we all need. Universities should never be seen as the only respectable route for young people to take. Even ivory towers need plumbers and bricklayers, and academics need hairdressers and caterers.
I have already referred to the creative industries as major players but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, bemoaned, music, art, dance and drama have disappeared from many state schools, as they have to conform to the demands of the baccalaureate, which squeezes such skills out of the timetable. Can the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given to tempering their obsession with knowledge and making a place for practical skills in the school curriculum? What consideration is given to the happiness of students as they master skills and produce things other than exam results?
I worked for 20 years for City & Guilds. Founded in 1878 by the City of London and 16 of the livery companies to promote training in trade and skills, the organisation continues to award millions of certificates every year in work-based subjects, all, of course, designed by employers. I say to the Government that T-levels are not unique in this respect. Every work-based qualification since time began has been designed by employers.
The City of London still puts great resource into encouraging financial, professional, sustainability and digital sectors and, like the livery companies, promoting apprenticeships. I declare an interest as a past master of the world traders livery company, which is a modern company. I am very proud that this year’s Lord Mayor is one of our past masters. Livery companies are major contributors to education and charity. I am delighted to see that we have another past Lord Mayor here—in the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—taking part today, because the City and the livery companies are major players in these areas. Like many others, they would love to see the apprenticeship levy reformed, so can the Minister say what steps are being taken to make the levy more conducive to take-up and more relevant to actual apprenticeships?
I mentioned colleges being essential to improving skills, yet their funding is always less generous than that of schools. The Open University and the WEA also provide invaluable support to those wishing to acquire skills later in life, for jobs but also for life and for contributions to the community. However, they always have to do battle for any government funding.
May I add my voice to the support for BTECs? The Government are obsessed by their new-found T-levels; they are untried, untested and currently with only some 26,000 students enrolled, as compared to 280,000 students studying at least one applied general qualification. BTECs provide a more effective, tried-and-tested route to higher education or skilled employment than A-levels or T-levels. It would be an act of vandalism to stop funding them and would exacerbate the shortage of qualified, skilled people in the workplace. Will the Minister do all she can to stop the Government from ruining life chances for the next generation and weigh in behind BTEC, City & Guilds and traditional apprenticeships to ensure that we can find qualified people from among our own workforce, both doing rewarding jobs and gaining satisfaction from their skills?
I will end with some stats from Open University, which reported that
“58% … of organisation leaders … report a mismatch between young people’s skill levels and employer expectations in the past three years. A decline in soft skills (54%) such as communication, teamwork, time management and technical skills … suggests there is a need for more investment in preparing this generation, that account for 20% of the current workforce, for the workplace”.
So, can the Government please rethink their response to our committee report and give us some hope for the future and the quality of life of young people?
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet and congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare, both on securing this debate and on the way in which he introduced it. He managed to cover such a wide range of issues, which I am sure will be highlighted in various respects over the course of the debate. I very much look forward to the maiden speeches that we are to hear.
I want to concentrate my contribution on the importance of green skills for the successful economy of the future, and for the delivery of the Government’s stated commitments towards net zero and a nature-based and nature-positive economy. Those commitments will mean a shift to jobs in low-carbon industries, and in providing nature-based solutions as part of a fair transition to net zero and nature restoration. That change can bring associated health and other co-benefits to all parts of the UK, particularly to the most vulnerable and some of the most disadvantaged.
As my noble friend Lord Aberdare so obviously and clearly explained, we need a national skills strategy. As part of that, we need a specific green skills strategy, which sets out a comprehensive plan for how the Government intend to deliver the green jobs and skills of the future. It is important to emphasise that green jobs are not just going to be those in the energy sector. In the same way that delivering the net-zero transition will need a concerted effort from all sectors—from government, education, government departments and local authorities—so the green jobs of the future will require the same comprehensive approach, with a huge range of jobs and skills needed in all sectors, from the health service and social care to education, transport and the built environment, including learning how to repair things once again, rather than throwing them away.
I would like to specifically ask the Minister about the Government’s promised net zero and nature workforce action plan. In 2023, the CCC noted that it was overdue. It has now been promised for 2024. To echo a remark made yesterday in the House, can the Minister tell us whether we will see it soon, shortly or in due course? Also, how will it fit into any broader national skills and productivity planning, such as the work of the Unit for Future Skills? It is vital that we have a proper, joined-up plan to deliver the skills we need for the future in a fair way, and to seize the opportunities it can bring across all regions of the UK.
As well as the new roles that will be created by the net-zero transition—the CCC estimates this to be up to 700,000 jobs by 2030—a recent report from Bain & Company estimates that around 4 million workers will need reskilling by 2030 to prepare for the new green economy. The Association of Colleges briefing, which noble Lords received, highlights the need for reform of the UK’s tertiary education system to help address future skills gaps, which could be a major constraint in delivering on the plans and commitments that the Government have made. Practically, if we are to deliver the Government’s target of 600,000 heat pump installations by 2028, how are we going to train enough heat-pump engineers when we have 3,000 at the moment and it is estimated that we need 27,000 to deliver on the Government’s promise?
It is also extremely important that we do not leave behind those who work in high-emitting sectors at the moment, whose transferable skills could be redirected very easily to the low-carbon industries of the future. If we do not reskill them, we will lose them to other countries which are developing their own green energy projects.
During debate on the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, we discussed an amendment which proposed the publication of a green skills retraining plan for the 30,000 or so oil and gas workers still working in our declining North Sea basin. This included a skills passport which would provide financial and practical support so that those workers who wish to do so can easily—and without additional cost to them—reskill and retrain. In that debate, the Minister confirmed that the Government are “keen to take … forward” such a plan and are supporting the delivery of work being led by Offshore Energies UK, which includes a skills passport. When she replies, can the Minister let us know when this work will be delivered? It is now two years since the industry-led integrated people and skills strategy recommended it. Will there be financial support for workers looking to move into green jobs?
Lord Marks of Hale (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I share many of her views on net zero and how we equip young people with the skills to deliver a green strategy.
With much pride, and some emotion, tempered with a healthy dose of butterflies, I rise to speak for the first time in this Chamber. Debating excellence is a hallmark of this House and we have already heard some outstanding speeches today. Therefore, on the advice of noble friends, I have spent time listening and learning before venturing to make my maiden speech.
Given the kindness and the size of the welcome I have been given since my introduction, I would like my first words to be those of gratitude and appreciation to everyone, but especially to my supporters: my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and my close party colleague and political mentor, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. I also extend my thanks to my Whip, my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton; to my mentor, my noble friend Lord McLoughlin; and for the advice proffered to me by Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments. I also thank the doorkeepers, who have never lost patience with me as I have asked—for at least the 20th time—the way to the Peers’ cloakroom. One corridor looks very much like another when you are a newbie.
I have many reasons to be passionate about skills and the need for skill equality across the country but before that, just a little about myself. My seat bears the title of Hale, a beautiful village in lovely countryside just to the south of Manchester, where I was brought up and still live with my devoted wife, and where we raised our four children. I am also an avid runner; since entering the House, I have chanced upon a new training programme. Sprinting from the Chamber to the platform at Euston, via the tube, has completely transformed my fitness, especially when trying to crack a sub-20 minutes. I invite any Mancunians in the House to join me.
As noble Lords will have gathered, I am a man of faith, so entering the Chamber for the first time from the Moses Room was very special to me. I was raised in a traditional Jewish household, where my parents—both businesspeople—left a deep impression on me of the pillars defining Judaism: belief in God, kindness to others, charity, justice and prayer. I have, over time, increased my observance and religiosity to become what is known as shomer Shabbat: someone who guards and observes the Sabbath, which is the most wonderful 25-hour weekly digital detox. I highly recommend it to everyone. As a hard-working entrepreneur, I like to say that I am available 24/6.
On Tuesday, we remembered the Holocaust, with our annual Yom HaShoah events around the country. It is with great sadness and despair that within living memory of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism has returned around the world. Like many Jews in this country, I am horrified and frightened by what I see, what I hear, and what I feel, whether on the streets, through social and other media, or of course in our universities.
I am therefore very grateful for the outpouring of support from noble Lords of all religions and backgrounds, who have been united in their condemnation of this. If we fight together and fight hard enough, we can and will stamp out this virus. I am also particularly thankful to our Prime Minister for his unwavering support of the Jewish community and for everything that he and the Government are doing to ensure that anti-Semitism has no place in society, including today meeting university leaders to ensure a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitic abuse on all campuses.
Although I went to a grammar school, my academic interests waned somewhat towards the end, shutting off the option of a university education for me. That was actually no big deal, as I was itching to embrace the world of commerce. I have been blessed with a successful career building a number of substantial companies, mostly in disruptive technologies—even taking one of them to the London Stock Exchange—and have always learned along the way from inspiring colleagues and clients. My business of the last 10 years has been at the forefront of corporate innovation, bringing talented start-ups to the attention of multinational companies and creating an environment for collaboration between David and Goliath. However, it was the skills I learned at school that prepared the way for my career. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on bringing this important debate to the House.
In my business, I am privileged to see thousands of technology and manufacturing solutions from around the world and to witness real innovation. While I believe that you cannot teach the drive, ambition, risk-taking and work ethic that makes an entrepreneur, you can teach them the skills they need to build and run our unicorns of the future. As the report outlines, essential skills include teamwork and communication, which all companies need in order to thrive. Likewise, the many people who believe that skills are particularly important in overcoming adversity and difficulties in life should not be overlooked. Many do not have the privilege of an easy or affluent childhood, but that should never be a barrier to success in future life.
Indeed, we all have a moral duty to ensure that we take the resilience that is often endowed as a result of a challenging childhood and combine it with everything a person needs to succeed, including apprenticeships, which I know can be a lifeline and bridge to a much happier world. Ensuring that young people are properly trained and equipped with the skills that suit their capability and temperament will facilitate favourable outcomes, whether entering the factory floor, rising up the corporate managerial ladder or building their own businesses. That must be the number one goal for UK plc.
The report also addresses levelling up, which I am completely in agreement with. Of course, it does not refer only to the north. The imbalance in skills across the country means that many areas are left behind, which leads to proportionately lower investment in innovation and R&D. However, some of the most successful companies, old and new, have thrived in some of the poorer parts of the country. I know that because I built my first company in Nelson in east Lancashire, one of the most deprived areas in the UK. However, we became an employment magnet and rewarded the workforce with training and career progression, and I am proud that many of our employees rose through the ranks at my company or transferred their skills to find new, exciting jobs elsewhere. We should gravitate to the leaders of these companies, embrace them and learn from them, so that we can copy the formula that works, thereby encouraging more businesses to open and relocate to these areas, which, in turn, addresses the economic imbalance and provides a marketplace for skilled workers. That, in turn, creates wealth, attracts more investment, improves the quality of life and raises the standards of living and education. As John F Kennedy said:
“A rising tide lifts all … boats”.
My only disappointment on joining this House is that I have not been able to spend time with the towering late Rabbi Lord Sacks, a true spiritual leader and a sage of our time. He was—and still is—my inspiration on all matters Judaic and, indeed, in life. He was taken away from us far too early. I will devote my final words to something he said:
“Where what you want to do meets what needs to be done”
is your mission in life. I hope that my contribution to public life, through my attendance in this House and participation in future debates, enables me to do exactly that and, in turn, to make a valuable contribution to this wonderful country.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Marks of Hale on a wonderful maiden speech. He is assured of a very warm welcome to our House. He gave an important and topical reminder of the dangers of anti-Semitism. For many of us, Lord Sacks is an excellent example of how the wisdom of the Jewish tradition can be of value to us all. The athleticism of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Hale, is also clearly very impressive. We look forward to seeing his running shoes alongside the mobility scooters downstairs. I am sure that he will be an important contributor to our debates in this House.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on opening and setting the scene for this important debate on skills. I draw the House’s attention to my interests.
I will focus on two issues. The first is the future of BTECs, which are important vocational qualifications, introduced as a skills reform in the 1980s—I am looking across to the former Secretary of State—and which play an important role in providing vocational qualifications today. The Government appear to believe that they can defund BTECs and everyone will instead move on to T-levels, but the figures do not bear that out. In 2021, 5,300 students started T-levels, and one-third dropped out, compared with one-fifth dropping out from other vocational qualifications and one in 10 dropping out from A-levels. The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates that, in comparison with the low numbers doing T-levels, defunding BTECs could result in 155,000 students not having a level 3 qualification that they otherwise would have secured through the BTEC route. I very much agree with the warnings from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on that issue.
BTECs matter. They are a route into degree apprenticeships, to which Ministers rightly attach a lot of importance. They are a route into higher education, with perhaps 60,000 people getting places in higher education as a result of BTECs in important vocational courses, such as nursing.
We have discussed BTECs in this House before, and I informed the Minister that I would raise with her the assurance that she gave us in a debate in this House on 7 April 2022:
“I know that noble Lords are all interested to see the provisional list of qualifications that overlap with waves 1 and 2 T-levels. I want to be absolutely clear to your Lordships today that through this process we expect to remove public funding approval for just a small proportion of the total level 3 offer, including BTECs. This will be significantly less than half”.—[Official Report, 7/4/22; col. 2202.]
That quotation from Hansard was the assurance she gave us approximately two years ago. I would be very grateful if she could update us on how the defunding of BTECs is progressing. It is possible that, in her statement to us two years ago, when she referred to “this process” she was not referring to the full defunding of BTECs but simply to overlap. I would very much like to hear the Government’s estimate of the total number of BTEC and other advanced qualification enrolments, after they have completed the full defunding process. A useful baseline is the 248,000 BTEC/AGQ enrolments in 2022-23. What is the Minister’s latest estimate of how many BTEC courses will be defunded? How many people will be enrolling on BTECs at the end of the full process of defunding BTECs, compared with that baseline of 248,000? As I said, I gave the department advance notice of this question and very much hope that, in the light of our previous debates, we will get those estimates today.
I also ask the Minister—given the slow take-up of T-levels, and given that we now know the Government do not see T-levels as part of a long-term framework—whether they are in turn going to be replaced by this new advanced qualification. Is there not an even stronger case for pausing the defunding of BTECs to reduce the risk that tens of thousands of young people might find themselves without any suitable qualification that they can study and end up not in education, employment or training? It would be a tragedy if the defunding of BTECs have that result. Given the latest information on the uptake of T-levels, I very much hope the Minister will be able to make some concessions on that.
The second issue I want to briefly touch on is degree apprenticeships. I very much welcome degree apprenticeships—they are an important part of the options available. It is just worth, again, putting the figures in context. There are now about 40,000 enrolments in degree apprenticeships, but half those are by people aged over 25. They seem to be particularly taken up by mature learners. We have about 20,000 young people starting degree apprenticeships, about 10% of the total number starting in higher education.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, rightly raised the question of the apprenticeship levy and the pressures on it. Degree apprenticeships are funded out of the apprenticeship levy. They are particularly expensive programs. If they are a significant claim on the apprenticeship levy, their growth is surely part of the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare: why are we seeing such a decline in the number of young people doing apprenticeships and apprenticeships at levels two and three? The answer is that this fixed pot of money is being increasingly deployed for degree apprenticeships.
I wish to see more expansion—as the noble Lord said—of apprenticeships for younger people and at lower levels. I urge the Government to consider funding degree apprenticeships out of fees and loans, just like the rest of higher education, to liberate funding for more apprenticeships. That would also have the side effect that, instead of trying to drive people on to degree apprenticeships by scares about the fees and costs of higher education, we would have a shared interest in explaining to young people that they do not pay for their higher education courses upfront and they should have the option of a growing number of degree apprenticeships alongside other higher education qualifications.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, most sincerely for securing this debate and for his wonderful speech. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on his inspiring maiden speech, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. I declare an interest as a professor at King’s College London who teaches students and, one hopes, develops their skills. I have been actively engaged for many years in skills policy, including as a government adviser.
At one level, I am delighted at the great interest in this debate on all sides of the House. But, alas, as the old saying goes, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. If we do not get precise commitments on non-university skills spending and on individual access to skills training in forthcoming party manifestos, in my opinion we will continue to deliver inadequate and inefficient skills policies that fail repeatedly and systematically to solve our main skills problems. This is not because politicians and advisers, let alone Peers, are insincere—it is because not just underfunding but repeated short-term upheavals and repeated unpredictable cuts and changes in skills provision are currently hard-wired into our system.
Skills spending always ends up in the Treasury’s and indeed the DfE’s sights when deficits are looming or a bright new initiative is being marketed—so round we go again. Why skills? In common with other developed societies, absolutely rightly we guarantee all children a free education from the age of five to 18 or 19. We offer free early education to three and four year-olds. We quite rightly have legislative obligations to children with special needs and disabilities and, in England and Wales, we offer support to everyone over 18 who is accepted on to a course in a registered higher education institution.
These are clear entitlements and are clearly understood by the population—and, because they are transparent and stable, people can and do plan ahead to use them. Institutions are also able to plan and deliver. But when it comes to mid-level skills—the sorts of skills we are mostly talking about today and the ones for which our economy is currently desperate—clarity is replaced by confusion and repeated, inefficient, expensive and often destructive change. I shall give noble Lords one example. If you stay at school until you are 18 and you are moderately successful, you will be offered a free education up to and including a level 3 award. Level 3 is the skilled trades level, as well as the usual university entry level; it is the one where our skills shortages in this country are the most glaring.
If you leave school without a level 3, our society turns its back on you. As a citizen, you have a right to a free education while you are 18, but not when you were 20, 25 or 30. This is a travesty—it is a travesty in terms of equal treatment of citizens and a travesty in terms of any coherent skills policy. In the Augar review, on which I was privileged to serve and contribute, we strongly recommended that every citizen should have a right to a free level 3. So have many others, including the Economic Affairs Committee of this House. The current Government, back in 2020, did not make a formal commitment to an entitlement, but they acted fast in launching a new funded program which in practice made this available, on terms that made it feasible and attractive for colleges to plan and launch new courses, which is always a high-risk decision. Why did they do so? It was not because there was a sudden blast of light one day, but because earlier there was written into the manifesto a new £3 billion skills fund to be spent over the Parliament, which Treasury could not just wave away. I am 100% sure that without that manifesto commitment nothing would have happened.
Crucially, access to this programme was simple. If you did not have a level 3 qualification, it was open to you—just as now, if you are offered a place at a university, you have a right to Student Loans Company support. Normally in our skills system, working out what you can access at this middle level, and whether you have to pay and what you have to pay, is a moving minefield. Not surprisingly, most people walk away. It is not that people do not want to train or upskill, but the system is completely non-transparent. In other words, it is designed to cut off our skills pipeline at the ankles. Of course, one programme did not transform things, but it was a major step in the right direction. I say “was”, because now the DfE is announcing new restrictions that will make most of these programmes completely unviable. Why? Well, some poor official has written the usual guff about better targeting, but it is actually because the DfE needs to find some money and it is looking for things to cut. As always, the simplest place to look is skills programmes.
This Government have, in my view, done some very good things for skills—and not only when they were listening to me—but I want to emphasise that these things happened because there was a ring-fenced pot and a very clear commitment in a manifesto. No Minister and no Front-Bench spokesman is going to make a commitment of that sort to me today, so I am not even going to ask the Minister to do so. However, if we enter the next election with only high-level uncosted aspirations and with no clear commitments to access to those mid-level skills for people who do not already have a level 3, five years from now we will be making the same speeches—and, if anything, things will be worse.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot of evidence that, once a certain standard of living is reached—economic security in particular—good relationships, happy families, and friends and community quite often follow, although not always necessarily, and both of these depend on skills and on the effort made by all of us on improving the quality of life, as the noble Lord said in his opening speech. There are quite a lot of both of these attributes, good skills and good quality of life, in the United Kingdom.
I do not go quite as far as Cecil Rhodes in his bombastic dictum in another age that to be born an Englishman is to have won first prize in the lottery of life. There may be one or two on the wilder shores of my party who have that view of life, but I will not tempt myself to name them today. However, it is a fact that lots of people want to come to the United Kingdom, which I am glad about—I do not speak of the dangerous lives of people seeking to come to our shores illegally. There are queues of people who wish to come here for the attributes that the United Kingdom has, and we should not just forget that and say that everything is a terrible problem.
I will give some examples. The City of London remains a destination ranked way above a Paris or a Frankfurt by generations of polls of those wishing to come to work in the financial services area, where I work. Our best universities remain a target, too, for undergraduate and postgraduate students who want to get proper legal entry into our best universities. We have some great universities, with always three and sometimes four in the top 10 and in the top 100—I forget the figure; doubtless my noble friend Lord Willetts will know what it is, but an awful lot of our universities are ranked in the top 100. We also always welcome a lot of outside direct investment. The UK remains the second biggest destination in Europe for foreign direct investment, and this is led by tough-minded investors from the US and India. These people must have spotted at least a few useful skills that we still have around.
Yet the paradox remains that, despite this, decent skill levels do not automatically lead to increased productivity, which is a mystery that I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to when he spoke of productivity. It is particularly poor in the United Kingdom. It is a genuine mystery, and a lot of very clever people are trying to provide the answer as to why it is there, but we have not yet got it. According to the Office for National Statistics in its report last week, the biggest drops in productivity are in the public sector, and they are in education and in health, which are critically important to all of us.
A lot of effort is being put in via policies of different sorts to improve this, notably by levelling up. However, a generation takes a long time, and we are often told that the levelling-up policy will take a generation. A generation is 20 or 30 years and change takes time. So I applaud the realism of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, as reported by the Financial Times of 30 April, who said that it remains “work in progress”, describing the process as like “building a cathedral”—and they often take longer than one or two generations. So it is extremely important that we deal with the unsolved mystery of why our productivity is so low.
We must also recognise that skills have lots of attributes that are hard to teach formally, but, if they are not acquired or imbued in some way, all the doctorates or degree apprenticeships in the world will not benefit and bring the skills of life with them. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who said in a speech during a debate which he initiated back on 7 March that we had to be realistic about the problems that the university sector is facing. He is right, I think, that we are facing a bit of a sub-prime issue—I will not overwork it by calling it a sub-prime crisis—in a number of our universities, where we have seen, alas, a lot of sacking of staff and abolition of courses. This is always brought in with a lot of management speak, even by great universities such as Goldsmiths, which has announced that it has a “transformation programme”. Once you see a transformation programme coming and vice-chancellors running for the hills, you know there is trouble. We are facing, there and in a number of our underperforming universities in this country, a bit of a looming sub-prime problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was absolutely open in saying that we have.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for securing this debate and particularly thank him for his formulation of the Motion, which acknowledges that skills are not just for “the economy” but for life, and indeed are the foundation of quality of life. That reflects the Green approach to education and skills training—that it indeed has to be for life, not just for exams or for vocational training.
I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. We have an education system that wastes term after term preparing for exams, which is not education or learning but is a very narrow skill that most people will never repeat once they leave the education system.
I want to particularly focus in one area of my remarks on the great tragedy of the collapse of lifelong learning provision. The number of publicly funded qualifications started by adults has declined by 70% since the early 2000s, dropping from nearly 5.5 million qualifications to 1.5 million qualifications by 2020—those are Institute for Fiscal Studies figures. Essentially, what is left is an extremely narrow range of courses focused particularly on education for jobs that might exist at this particular moment.
The total spend on adult education and apprenticeships combined will be 25% lower in 2024-25 than in 2010-11, and markers have already been made on the plan for adults over the age of 24 studying level 3 and 4 qualifications being forced to take on debt. We are loading our young people down with debt that they will never be able to repay, and now we are seeking to do the same thing right through our age ranges. We have seen the damage it has done to our young people. What damage will it do to people seeking to get ahead, to have that weight of debt on their shoulders?
What is happening here? I will quote one figure: in the last decade, there have been 4 million “lost learners”. That means people who have not been able to advance their productivity—to focus on something this House often looks at—but also have not been able to improve their health through education and skills training, which is very much underrated.
One of the ways in which we utterly fail to value skills is by failing to value the people who teach the skills. In a UCU survey that came out last year, among further education college staff 77% said that the quantity of work had “increased significantly” in the past three years. More than four in 10 say their workload was “unmanageable”. Those who provide education and skills training need to be valued as essential workers and paid and treated accordingly—and that is not what is happening now. If the noble Lord, Lord Patten, wants to look at why productivity might be low, exhaustion, overwork and lack of being valued and treated well may well be factors in that figure.
I want to pick up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on green skills, and particularly, as she said, that they are too often thought of as relating just to the energy and technology sectors. I will focus briefly on land-based skills in particular. We have seen a cascade of closures of agricultural colleges around the nation, among them recently the 125 year-old Newton Rigg College in Penrith, which is much mourned and much valued. It was deemed no longer financially viable. That is the product of government policy decisions and government funding decisions—a system that has failed to acknowledge that we need food security in this country and that that requires skills.
We have seen some movement from the Government in acknowledging that food security is not just, as I think the Prime Minister three PMs back said, a matter for the supermarkets. There is now some acknowledgement that it is a matter for the Government. Surely land-based skills, the ability to grow food and—I stress this—the ability to engage in environmental horticulture and care for our natural spaces are skills in one of the greatest areas of shortage for our country.
I ask the Minister a question. I know that we are about to start a GCSE in natural history. Can she update me, now or later, on how that is progressing, what student numbers are looking like and how many of those courses are likely to be introduced?
I have two brief final points. Even when a Green Government have introduced a wonderful education system and lifelong learning system, there will never be enough skills. We need to think about where the skills are going. We have an oversized financial sector, which employs 9 million people and swallows up many of our physics and maths graduates and many other people with key levels of skills. We need to think about where those people could be better used for the state of our society—for the future resilience and well-being of all of us.
I also briefly note that we need to acknowledge skills that have been acquired through experience. We need to stop talking about “unskilled jobs”. Many of the jobs that people do on the minimum wage are really difficult, and they have to learn to do them, and we need to acknowledge them in the levels of pay and respect.
I will finish by reflecting on a young woman I met in the north-east recently. In her mid-20s, she had spent a decade caring for her father, who had a horrible degenerative disease. She is a NEET—not in education, employment or training. She has learned so much and has so many skills, but she does not have a lot of confidence, because society has not valued what she has done. We need to value skills that people, particularly women, have acquired through care, and acknowledge them when they seek to enter the labour market.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, some people think that learning a foreign language is just an academic pursuit for the top set, but languages are an important skill for everyone. They enhance the economy and individual lives. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The UK is often caricatured as no good at languages, partly in the belief that “Everyone speaks English, so why bother?” But this is a myth: only 6% of the world’s population are native English speakers, and 75% speak no English at all. In the 21st century, speaking only English is as much of a disadvantage as speaking no English. Another myth is that we need not bother because there is always Google Translate. But when it comes to nuance, cultural sensitivity and understanding, humans and interpersonal skills will always be needed. Ask any soldier who has been deployed to Afghanistan how vital their interpreters have been and how easy it might have been for a single wrong word on Google to have made the difference between life and death.
I return to the UK and the value of language skills to our economy. Research estimates that lack of language skills here costs an estimated 3.5% of GDP. SMEs making use of languages are 30% more successful in exporting than those that do not. In 2022, Cambridge University research calculated that, if we invested more in teaching French, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic in schools, we could increase our exports by up to £19 billion a year. The British Chambers of Commerce sector survey showed that 38% of businesses expect to need language skills.
Yet employers are frequently forced to recruit from overseas because they say our school leavers and graduates fall short of the language skills that they need. A CBI skills survey said that modern language skills were the ones that employers were the least satisfied with. Only 9% of English 15-year-olds are competent in their first foreign language beyond a very basic level, compared with an average of 42% across 14 European countries. But tighter immigration rules have had an adverse impact on recruitment from overseas, making it even more important to invest more, and more strategically, in language teaching and learning here in the UK. In 2023, only 33% of the target for MFL trainee teachers was met.
This is a challenge not just for graduate or international jobs. One survey showed that the highest level of language skills shortages is among basic clerical and admin staff. You do not always need to be fluent: basic conversation in one or two other languages will often land you the job. Without language skills, the shutters come down on possible career paths not just into business but into diplomacy, international relations, defence and security. Qualified linguists are also needed in key sectors, such as public service translators and interpreters in the NHS, the police and the courts.
As well as opening doors to jobs and careers, learning languages also means learning about other cultures and countries. Trips and exchanges abroad can be inspirational and life-changing. The British Academy has shown how languages bring recognised transferable skills, such as problem-solving, creativity and an international mindset. Believe it or not, there are also proven benefits to cognitive function, the delaying of dementia and helping recovery from stroke. Research has shown that primary school age children who learn another language perform significantly better across the whole curriculum, including in maths.
The fact that the lowest take-up of language GCSEs corresponds exactly with the UK regions where we have the highest recorded skills shortages and unemployment, and the most pupils from low-income families and on free school meals, should in itself be an enormous red flag to politicians and policymakers concerned with levelling up. More attention and more investment in language teaching and learning would be a great help in that regard.
I conclude by flagging up the headlines for six key areas needing urgent attention if we are to improve language proficiency in the UK. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on each of them, however briefly.
First, double down on boosting take-up of language GCSEs and A-levels, for example by introducing the advanced language premium as an incentive to schools, modelled on the advanced maths premium, which has been successful.
Secondly, sort out the financial and bureaucratic obstacles to trips and exchanges—the Minister knows from our recent debate what I mean by that.
Thirdly, encourage more local authorities to replicate the Hackney transition system, so that key stage 2 language learning is built on, rather than undermined, when children go to secondary school.
Fourthly, look at the FE sector: a landmark report from the British Academy said that FE colleges were a language learning cold spot.
Fifthly, deal with the haemorrhaging of languages from universities. Over 60 of them have cut some or all their modern language degrees since 2000. We must return to a system which protects languages as a strategically vulnerable subject.
Sixthly and finally, do not forget our 2 million bilingual children and make sure they have the chance to gain academic qualifications in their home or heritage languages, many of which are of strategic importance to the UK, whether in business, security or diplomacy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on securing this debate and opening it so brilliantly, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Hale, for a gently brilliant but forceful speech. If I am not down in the Chamber and up in my room and I see his name on the annunciator in future, I certainly will turn the sound on and listen to what he has to say.
The skills problem in this country is of long standing. There are Blue Books written in the 19th century which decry the shortage of skills here relative to Germany. As people such as Correlli Barnett and others have pointed out, the roots lie in a sort of class prejudice that attributes prestige to a subject in inverse proportion to its practical and commercial value: the prestige is higher the more academic it is and lower the more practical and commercial it is.
I saw that in my own life. My grandfather, who was a skilled lathe operator during the First World War producing torpedoes, educated himself in mechanical engineering and rose up the firm a bit. Eventually—obviously, he was inspired by the prediction of what my noble friend Lord Baker would recommend—he ended up teaching mechanical engineering in a college of further education. So it always seemed a wonderful thing to me, and when I went to university and acquired a degree in natural sciences, I asked my director of studies if I could move to mechanical engineering. He said, “No—you’re quite clever enough to continue doing pure science”. He was wrong in two respects: I was never going to be another Einstein, and we need clever people, whether at university or in colleges and schools, to acquire the skills to make the things we use. If I go over a bridge, I want to know that the engineer who designed and created that bridge was good, and that the people who welded it were skilled in what they were doing.
Sadly, there are only two ways to increase the supply of skills in this country. One is to increase the skill levels of the domestic population, and the other is to import skills from abroad. My thesis is that unless and until we break the national addiction to importing skills from abroad, we will never seriously tackle the lack of domestic skilled people. Almost the only person who has done anything useful and practical is my noble friend Lord Baker; most of the other initiatives have been ineffectual or half-hearted.
Since Tony Blair opened our borders to the importing of skills from abroad—this is not a party-political point, because he was, sadly, followed by the coalition Government and Boris Johnson—spending on training of people at work has declined, and, predictably, the time people at work spend on training has declined. One of the things that brought home to me how deeply entrenched this belief is in the need to import skills from abroad—and, indeed, the virtue of doing so—was when I was on the Select Committee in the other House and we went up to Sunderland after the referendum. We were greeted by people from the local district council, the county council, the local CBI, the Institute of Directors and the chamber of commerce, and they said their principal fear was that they would no longer be able to import skilled workers from abroad.
The only major employer that was not present was Nissan. I remembered visiting Nissan when I was Trade and Industry Secretary shortly after it set up, and I asked a rather stupid question. They were too polite to point out who was stupid, but I asked them whether they had had any problems recruiting trained automotive workers in Durham when they set up. Of course, there were none within hundreds of miles of there, so it was a stupid question. But they said no, they had trained them, and they were very keen to be trained. Now, the Nissan factory is the most productive factory in the whole Nissan network across the world. So I put it to the local CBI, IoD and chamber of commerce that if Nissan had been able or inclined to follow its belief that the way to get skills was to import them from Europe, there would be 7,000 people in Sunderland flipping hamburgers or unemployed, instead of being the most productive workers in the Nissan network.
We have to break this addiction—but, unfortunately, we have convinced ourselves that, at least for specific skills shortages, we must import the workers from abroad. Yet, since we took that view, in almost all the areas where we initially had a shortage, the shortage has got worse. That should not come as any surprise, because the International Labour Organization, way back in 2004, warned:
“What may begin as a simple temporary ‘spot shortage’ of trained native workers, can be made considerably more permanent by attempting a quick fix from migrant labor. Any program which imports migrants into a sector whose employers are complaining of insufficient trained natives, can be expected to exacerbate (rather than alleviate) its native shortage. Rather than raising incentives to entice new workers to seek training to fill the empty slots, visas are likely to be used to avoid the needed market response”.
But we did not take any notice of that.
My conclusion, therefore, is that if in future we say there is a specific shortage and for a while, we will have to import people from abroad, that must be permitted only if there is an agreement between the employers, educators and the Government that they will train more people in that sector, so that we do not have such a reliance, within a specific period. Employers will have to recognise and acknowledge that during that period—probably indefinitely—they will have to pay more for those people.
I mention pay because it is rather important. The very idea of a shortage of labour in a free market is an oxymoron. Again, this was pointed out by a colleague of the author I have just quoted, who said:
“Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. That is not to say that they don’t exist. They are created when employers or government agencies tamper with the natural functioning of the wage mechanism”.
Allowing indefinite reliance on importing labour from abroad has enabled us to put off tackling the shortages, which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has, thankfully, brought to our attention, and which, hopefully, with the advice of my noble friend Lord Baker, we will in future remedy.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has plainly scored a real bull’s-eye in initiating this debate. I also cannot help but applaud the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his everlasting ebullience and fighting spirit. Long may that continue. Finally, I welcome the hopeful and positive messages in the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Hale.
In total, there are just under 1 million vacancies in the UK economy. As the ONS recently identified, most UK businesses now face a significant shortage of workers. In most sectors of our economy, shortage of skills is a critical factor, as it is, for instance, in construction, manufacturing, health, education and business services—just some among many.
There are shortfalls in every category of worker with skilled trades in the lead. I give just two examples: in 2022, there were 43,000 vacancies in skilled metal, electrical and electronic trades; and 83,000 vacancies in social care. In all, the ONS estimates that the UK economy is short of over half a million workers with the appropriate level of skill. This is surely one, if not the only, reason why the country is experiencing low growth and relatively low productivity—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, a moment ago.
One root cause of the skills shortage is the post-pandemic exodus from the workforce of around 400,000 adults aged 50 to 64, but there is other causation too. We lack an appropriate balance between vocational and academic education. Allow me to offer some evidence of that imbalance and the reasons for it.
Fewer than 3% of 16 year-olds are becoming apprentices. In 2021, 250,000 students entered university, while fewer than a quarter of that figure took on apprenticeships. Remarkably, the number enrolling in FE colleges is only a 30th of the number attending university. The OECD records that our secondary schools perform above average by global standards, which we all welcome, but that the bottom quartile in those schools has a very low sense of personal well-being.
Poorer children are performing far less well than their richer classmates. For instance, the richest 33% gain an A or A* at A-level, compared with only 5% of the poorest decile of students. The problem appears to be worsening; post Covid, persistent absence has affected almost one-third of all UK schools. The ONS has identified that one in seven 16 to 24 year-olds is not in education, work or training. According to the Prince’s Trust, the main cause for that shocking statistic identified by those dropping out is their mental health.
Over 3 million people in the wider population now draw PIPs—personal independence payments. Nearly 8 million people of working age in the UK now say that they have a significant disability or health condition. Can we not do more to help these individuals to find work which suits them and in which they will be happy and productive? Can we do more, especially in our schools, to expose young people to the satisfactions and pleasures of work and to arm them with the soft skills necessary to navigate the workplace?
The economy is highly dynamic, constantly reinventing itself and demanding new skills and abilities. Society too is dynamic, constantly evolving, and embracing social and cultural shifts. It is not clear, however, that our education, skills, health and welfare systems are acting in step and that they are sufficiently dynamic and innovative to keep abreast of and respond to these ever-changing needs of both individuals and the economy. These issues are deep, stubborn and challenging and, as a nation, we need to step back and consider in the round how best to address them.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for this extremely important debate. I am beginning to think that the only place that there is no skills shortage is in this Chamber, although the real skill might well be fitting all that we have to say into the brief time that we have been allotted.
I was thinking through the things that I am lucky enough to have done over the last 20 years and wondering on which I should focus today. Should it be the work that we did when I was setting up Doteveryone, helping people in this building and the other place with the skills to understand digital technology more? Should it be the challenges that I saw as the chair of WeTransfer, a mid-scale tech company, as we tried to recruit people who can help us to design the future? Should it be the skills that we see and that my noble friend Lady Hayman talked about, as a director of Peers for the Planet, in transitioning to the green economy? But, as some noble Lords know, I am a relatively eternal optimist so will focus on two things that are actually working, on which I would like Members on all the Front Benches to respond in saying how important they are in their own strategic plans for skills.
The first is the local skills improvement plans that have already been mentioned, particularly by my noble friend Lord Aberdare. As president of the British Chambers of Commerce, I am thrilled that we run 32 of the 38 LSIPs that have been created around the country. These are collaborative plans that are very local and encourage businesses, local education providers of all colours and any other interested parties to sit down and map out what they need for their area to succeed. We have so far engaged over 65,000 businesses in these plans, and I will just talk to your Lordships about two specific examples.
The first is in Coventry and Warwickshire, where the chambers have been working with over 3,500 different employers. Over 74% of the employers that the chambers are working with say they have never sat down with any of the higher education providers in their area in the last five years. This unlock has been fundamental in helping both businesses and the providers plan for what both sides need over the next two or three years.
It is staggeringly interestingly to me, particularly as former chair of the committee on Covid and its long-term implications, that there seems to have been an extreme drop-off, post-Covid, in how much collaboration happens across different bits of the economy and the sectors serving the skills parts of the economy that we are talking about today. However, these local skills improvement plans are a tangible way to encourage this collaboration. When the providers have mapped out their needs, they will then come up with a plan, on both the business side and the education side—higher, tertiary or any level—for what is needed to plug those gaps. It could be advanced manufacturing or very simple skills in hospitality. There is a whole range of things.
The second example that has come out of these local skills improvement plans is the partnership that the British Chambers of Commerce has with Aviva, where we have committed to train 150 town planners. This is just a small start but gets to the core of so much of what we are talking about. Both the Government and the opposition parties have launched major reforms into planning. It is interesting that they are doing this with very little understanding of how we are going to execute that, as we have no town planners. This very small start should be an indication of how we can encourage businesses to match with a national network—Aviva with the chambers, in this case—to have the fundamental skills we need to create this change.
Please support the LSIPs. The funding runs out in 2025 but they need to be there until 2028 and beyond. We need a long-term focus on something that is actually working and that employers tell us is working.
I cannot stand here without mentioning the Open University, of which I am chancellor. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, has already mentioned its importance and I know noble Lords have had briefings from the university in research for today’s debate. We have this incredible national asset sitting in front of us, yet we have had battles for the last decade to get the requisite funding for this organisation. It is the organisation that is helping people to continue to retrain and get the skills they need. Some 63% of our learners are in work. They are not part-time learners; they are double-time learners. Please, let us support this fantastic organisation.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I stand here today deeply honoured to be a Member of your Lordships’ House and proud to be sitting alongside my first boss, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who gave me my first tour of this place in 1996, when he was the Member for Leeds North East in the other place. Looking around this historic Chamber, I recall him proudly telling me how it was built using limestone from Yorkshire. I like to imagine that the seam of rock each building block is carved from runs all the way to Mickle Fell, the highest point in the historic county of Yorkshire, close to where my grandparents, the Elliotts, lived.
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as Black Rod and her staff, the doorkeepers, police officers, advisers, and all the other wonderful staff, for their warm welcome and guidance. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Marks on his excellent maiden speech. I note that he was born on the other side of the Pennines to me, so I will resist making any further reference to Yorkshire. I am grateful for the advice that I received from noble friends in preparation for today, in particular my mentor and noble friend Lord Kamall, and my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Kirkhope, who introduced me to the House earlier this year.
When I mentioned to another noble friend that I was planning to make my maiden speech on 9 May, they said, in rather more colourful language than this, “Really? That’s Europe Day. Are you going to talk about Brexit?”. That’s a subject I do not intend to revisit, at least today. I am instead delighted to have the opportunity to speak about something more foundational, which is far closer to my heart—the subject of business as a force for good in delivering skills and training opportunities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for raising this important subject today.
Our nation’s prosperity is firmly anchored in the vigour of our business community, a truth echoed by the very fabric of this Chamber. The Woolsack before us, symbolising the historical wealth from the wool trade, serves as a constant reminder of the essential role of business in creating the prosperity our nation enjoys. In terms of our future prosperity, 64% of apprenticeships in England are provided by businesses—almost double the number offered by colleges, schools and public bodies combined. I use this opportunity to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Robert Halfon, who has championed apprenticeships throughout his parliamentary career in the other place and leaves behind him the tremendous legacy of the lifelong learning Act.
We should also remember that civic-minded business leaders familiar to this place are behind some of the most successful schools in the UK, not least the JCB Academy, the Ashcroft Technology Academy, the Harris Federation and the Dixons Academies Trust. We should never forget that businesses, from the smallest corner shop to the largest supermarket chain, are responsible for generating the tax revenue that funds our education system. Take Sainsbury’s, for example, which typically pays in excess of £2 billion annually to the Exchequer—enough to fund 50,000 teachers, 100 new secondary schools or nearly half of the entire adult education budget.
To repeat, the business community is essential to the skills debate, whether through the provision of training, the establishment of schools or the payment of taxes that fund our public services. On top of this, businesses are also a powerful engine for social justice. Earlier this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, eloquently spoke about the vital role of business in tackling poverty, especially through the provision of high-quality jobs. This is a cause that I also champion as president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register of interests. I am grateful to be supported in this work by my noble friend Lord Harrington and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who both serve on our advisory council.
As part of this role, I travel across the country, meeting local business leaders and entrepreneurs. The stories I hear are a powerful reminder of the direct impact that businesses have on people’s lives. I recently visited a local London bakery called the Dusty Knuckle. As well as serving delicious baked goods, it works with young offenders, helping them grow their skills and confidence through a combination of on-the-job training and mentorship in a successful, warm-hearted business. In the words of one of its trainees, “I feel so much happier. I feel like a real person in the real world; like I actually exist”.
Another successful entrepreneur shared with me his father’s story. Many decades ago, his father fell in with the wrong crowd and ended up in prison. After his release, he successfully completed a training course to drive fuel tankers across the country. The entrepreneur still vividly recalls the moment his father opened a telegram from Shell, telling him it knew about his period in custody but was still willing to give him a permanent job. It was, he told me, the one and only time he ever saw his father cry. These are just two examples of businesses being a force for good, and an illustration of why a successful society requires successful businesses.
I will conclude with the words of Winston Churchill, who delivered many of his wartime speeches in this very Chamber: “Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others see it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon”. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House to ensure that more people have access to these opportunities in life, and that we support businesses to do even more good in the local communities they serve.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Elliott’s maiden speech, to which I will return a bit later. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for allowing us to have this debate. Of all the many speeches, I will refer particularly to that of my noble friend Lord Baker, who I have been a willing acolyte and devotee of for many years. I congratulate him on the work he has done for the UTCs. We have heard an excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Marks of Hale—which is the wrong side of the Pennines to me, as well as to my noble friend Lord Elliott. I look forward to many contributions from him in the future.
I must briefly return to my noble friend Lord Elliott, because our lives have a lot in common. I am following him today, but he followed me to Leeds Grammar School, which we both attended—unfortunately for me, with a 20-year gap. He chose to be Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, which, as he explained, is where his grandparents come from. It has a link with Leeds Grammar School. My noble friend referred to it as one of the highest peaks in Yorkshire. For me, it was a place of terror and one where I had absolutely no skills whatever; it was the location of our school outward bound centre, which I am sure my noble friend thrived at. For me, I promise your Lordships, it was not the highlight of a school career.
Our paths crossed again in later life in London. He has shown skills in so many things that he has done, with his work as a policymaker with very successful groups, such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance and others, for which he deserves absolute credit. I wish in 2016 he had used his skills in, from my perspective, a rather better direction than Vote Leave. He did say he was not going to mention Brexit, and I will not, but I have remained, and remain to this day, a major fan of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. The work he has done has always been to do with business and jobs, as typified now by the Jobs Foundation that he mentioned.
I speak in this skills debate as a person who prided myself, in my business life, on training apprentices and giving people opportunities in life. Luckily enough, in my political life, my first job was as an apprentice adviser to David Cameron in 2011. That was probably because he could not fit me in to promote me to be a Minister at the time, but I took it as being very important. With Nick Boles and others, I worked on the apprenticeship levy. The apprenticeship levy, to me, was an excellent idea because it felt that, if businesses were paying to train apprentices, they would in fact hire apprentices. It sounds very simple, but very good in theory. It was only some years later, when I reappeared as Business Minister, following other jobs, that I found most meetings I attended had people criticising the apprenticeship levy. It did have its faults—and it does have its faults to this day. But its achievements have been very significant in increasing the number of apprenticeships.
I am delighted to see Robert Halfon here in the Chamber today. He has contributed so much to skills. One of his early jobs in that was probably taking over from me as chairman of the grand-sounding Apprenticeship Delivery Board. Actually, it was all of our responsibility to bring apprenticeships to the forefront of companies that had not considered them otherwise.
Many good things have come from that. We have seen ups and downs with apprenticeships, but the overall trajectory seems very good. We have seen the implementation of a lot of different standards, and apprenticeships in fields that had never dreamed of before. Degree apprentices, banking, estate agencies, accountancy—you name it, a lot of people have been given an opportunity in life that they would not have had otherwise.
I would like to say, though, on the crucial manufacturing sector, which is absolutely at the centre of the skills debate and of most plans to bring about growth in the UK economy, I am very concerned. Starts have gone down from 120,000 to 45,000 per year, according to Stephen Phipson of Make UK, an organisation which has done so much in the training of apprenticeships. We have tried to look into why that has happened, because most people would think that apprenticeships in engineering, manufacturing and things like that are natural types of apprenticeship. There are a number of reasons. It appears that private training companies are dropping out of apprenticeships training. Their costs have gone up dramatically and the figure placed for these apprenticeships—which I think was £26,000 per year—has not increased over the time. Of course, the cost of providing those apprenticeships has gone up, so many have dropped out. We need to recognise this, and to get these firms back into providing apprenticeships.
Secondly, there are other providers, such as colleges of further education; they appear to be dropping out of training these kinds of apprenticeships as well. We have tried to find out why. There are a few technical matters: for example, they are not allowed to use the apprenticeship levy for capital expenditure. Of course, if you are training engineers, the tools and the equipment are extremely expensive. It seems to me rational that they should be allowed to use the kind of money from the levy to facilitate that, because it is as much part of the apprenticeship as the labour.
So we need to look into this carefully. I hope that this Government and future Governments will listen to Make UK and to people who really want to see apprenticeships succeed, because they know how important the skills agenda is to the economy.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher in Hackney. I join the chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for this opportunity to debate the issue, and I congratulate him, as ever, on his hard work, his opening speech, and the fact that he has acquired the skill of speaking Welsh, which he kept very quiet. He is an inspiration to us all.
I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Hale, and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, on their excellent maiden speeches. They were able, thought-provoking and delivered with a high level of skill.
I also thank all the organisations that sent me briefings for this debate, and admit that I read none of them. Because I do not think we needed to. Everybody agrees that skills are vital for the success of the UK economy and for the quality of life of individuals.
I am honoured to be among so many people with so much experience, particularly those responsible for the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee report. I described in an email how, having read only the first page of the summary, I had punched the air three times. Thinking about it further, the report does not go far enough. Perhaps that is why the Government rejected pretty much all of it.
In our schools, we are confusing knowledge with skill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, pointed out. They are not the same. The knowledge-rich curriculum is teaching students the art of learning large amounts of facts rather than skills. Some are obviously transferable; many are not. We are all aware that students lack the skills for life today. We decry that fact that they lack the basic skills for work or adulthood, yet we persist in doing nothing about it. We consider much of the vital work as extracurricular, or cram it, once a term, into PSHE day.
Our curriculum and methodology have changed very little since Victorian times; filling our heads with facts so that students go off to work in banks or the colonial service, or march unquestioningly across no man’s land. Why do we insist on memorising so much when we have the internet to hand? How many people can truthfully say that they do long multiplication these days? They have a calculator on their phone. Genuinely, who sits down in a sports hall and writes by hand for three hours?
I am fully aware that many noble Lords will be forming the words “hippy-dippy” in their minds, and deciding, “We tried that in the 70s and look what happened”. No, we did not.
We need to concentrate on what matters. Mental arithmetic needs to be hammered in, and grammar, punctuation, and good oracy skills, need to be the bedrock of any education. But rather than long division—which you can do on your phone—would it not be better to have an intuitive knowledge of how to design, populate and interpret a spreadsheet? Would it not be better to teach students about their bodies, so that they can look after themselves and save the NHS billions? Rather than study the plays of Shakespeare, would it not be better to write, produce, act in and record a film? I have said in this place before that I believe that every student should leave school having started at least one business. Dare I say that this might be fun to learn, and fun to teach.
These things would give students real-world skills that can be honed in tertiary education, or used instantly in the workplace. Add touch-typing and a high level of Microsoft Office skills and you now have a cohort who can hit the ground running when they leave education. The joyous thing is that this would actually save the nation money in filling the skills gap and helping with student attendance, teacher retention and student attainment.
To quote from one of my favourite films, “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, on the subject of university,
“I didn’t go myself. I couldn’t see the point. You see, when you work in the money markets, what use are the novels of Wordsworth gonna be, eh?”
I have not even started on my own subject, design technology, which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, very kindly talked about, or craft skills. As far as I know, AI has not learned to change the fuse in a plug yet or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, repaired something. It cannot do sports, or loads of the other skills we need. The winds of change are coming. We have a once in a lifetime chance to start a revolution. Will the Minister join me in storming the barricades?
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, while also thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I remind your Lordships of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education. The institution, the only royal chartered body exclusively for further education, was founded in 2015. Its chief aim is to improve skills education in the UK by creating what could be called, in shorthand form, a Russell Group of further education colleges and providers—the best that we have in the country. It has certainly succeeded in doing so. Aspiring members have to satisfy a council of their peers of the high quality of their governance, leadership and management, teaching and learning, and their financial strengths, including reserves, as well as student satisfaction and, above all, the employment destinations of their students. Typical of our members is Burton and South Derbyshire College, which was very recently adjudged “outstanding” by Ofsted in all areas. I pay tribute to its principal, Mrs Dawn Ward, for her wholly distinguished leadership.
The chartered institution has developed a number of projects aimed at spreading good practice in the vocational sector: for instance, its skills update licentiate programme requires participating college lecturers, such as in automobile engineering, to revisit their industries regularly over a full year to gain the most contemporary know-how that, for instance, Mercedes, Toyota or Jaguar have available, which then may be passed on to students so that their skills are wholly up to date. This year, we also launched an initiative with the Association of Apprentices to enable those successfully completing to be recognised with a post-nominal designation.
I want to touch on T-levels for a minute or two. These present a prime opportunity to elevate professional and technical education, but there are some real concerns that need addressing. T-levels have rightly been mapped against technical jobs that are in high demand; they require a common vocational core in the first year and then an occupational specialism in the second. For instance, engineering T-level has three routes: design and development for engineering, which has four specialist pathways in the second year; maintenance, installation and repair for engineering, which leads to five; and engineering, manufacturing and processing, which has four. Adding them up, there are 13 highly specialised engineering career pathways among which a school leaver, in principle, may choose. In fact, even assuming that the student has the knowledge at 16 with which to make that choice, the chances of finding, even among the best colleges, one that can provide more than a couple out of the 13 is very remote. It is clear that the provision is far too complicated and ought to be rationalised.
In spite of this Government’s impressive record on improving numeracy and literacy teaching, far too many young people in school are still unable to achieve adequate GCSE results in English and maths. To progress to T-levels, they have to retake them at FE colleges, which distort the main vocational mission of those colleges. Alas, even with significant support, resitting learners do very badly; only 14% pass in maths and 22% in English, so T-levels will be wholly unavailable to them. Also unavailable to them next year, when funding ceases for level 3 vocational trade programmes, will be any kind of advanced qualification in, say, carpentry, joinery or bricklaying. These young people will be marginalised, and their chances of employment much diminished. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, we need to revisit the decision to end funding for vocational level 3 programmes, while T-levels are being developed and their glitches removed.
All T-level students are required to spend 45 days of their courses at industry placements. There is evidence from colleges that employers are suffering from fatigue with T-level work experience—as well as with apprenticeships, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, told us. Placements are becoming very difficult to find, particularly in rural and deprived areas. We badly need to look again at funding schemes to support and incentivise employers to engage in placements, especially in SMEs.
Finally, I remind your Lordships that March’s joint report on restoration and renewal says that
“businesses in all four nations of the UK will also benefit from the work … that restoring the Palace will generate. Jobs and opportunities will be created”,
while skills and trades will be revitalised. Many of these will be heritage crafts, of course. I am delighted that representatives of the programme board have approved in principle a Palace of Westminster apprenticeship scheme that I have been proposing since restoration and renewal was first debated in this House. It will, of course, be a huge opportunity to showcase apprenticeships and to emphasise the importance of skills for the UK’s economy. We must take advantage of it.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for introducing this topic. We have the economic challenge of building relevant skills for the future and the social challenge of one in 10 youngsters being unemployed. I shall focus on the need to join these two thoughts up by finding ways of upskilling these people for worthwhile jobs—both for their own quality of life and for the sake of the economy.
The most recent government skills survey found that skills shortage vacancies have grown from 6% to 10% in the last five years. Prominent examples include a shortage of 200,000 employees with green skills, three-quarters of businesses with digital skills vacancies, and more than half of our manufacturers struggling to find skilled workers. On the other hand, only 11% of UK workers have advanced digital skills. Last year, the number of young unemployed increased by 10%.
Through my work as a director of Business in the Community, I see at first hand the challenges that young people face in forgotten places across the UK. Let us take, for example, Claremont ward in Blackpool, where there are 480 unemployed individuals in just 12 streets. There is a concentration of families in slum housing where there is a subculture of many youngsters not leaving their bedrooms post-Covid.
Last week, I visited Eastwood primary school in Keighley to understand the challenge in enabling children just to learn to read—a fundamental skill, if they are to go on to get a good job. The school provides a haven of calm for children in an area where parents dare not let them out on the streets. It provides food for families, clothes and a safe place for parents to learn cooking skills. It also ferries children to the dentist because there is not one locally. There are four year-olds with rotten teeth and abscesses which keep them off school. Sadly, these challenges and interventions are common to schools in Claremont, North Earlham, Foleshill and other places where we work.
Looking outside the school system, Pillgwenlly, in Newport, is an ethnically diverse community—more than 32 languages are spoken at the local primary school. On the streets, county lines are commonplace and there is a red light district opposite the police station. Community organisations such as the Newport Yemeni Community Association and Kidcare4U run catch-up clubs for more than 120 children on Saturday mornings. However, funding is due to end in August.
Let me turn to some practical steps that might help. These fall into three categories: first, finding realistic routes to help the young unemployed into work; secondly, helping those in secondary school to understand work and future job opportunities better; and thirdly, supporting heroic teachers in challenging primary schools, so that children can leave feeling confident in themselves and able to read.
Extensive work carried out by the Rank Foundation in Claremont suggests that we need an intermediate labour market to provide opportunities to get the youngsters currently sitting in their bedrooms into work. This involves working eight to 12 hours a week in real work situations, paid at a living wage, which provide dignity and purpose. It would help further if the Department for Work and Pensions considered talking to these people online, rather than insisting they come into the office.
The apprenticeship levy has not been fully spent. I encourage the Government to double down on apprenticeships, making them as flexible as possible but also advising companies that they can pass the levy on to their supply chain, a fact of which many companies are unaware.
In Sheffield, we have recently launched a campaign with local businesses to provide routine and frequent employer encounters for all the schoolchildren in the area. This is based on robust analysis by the Careers & Enterprise Company which suggests these contacts can reduce future likelihood of unemployment by 20%. The advantage of this approach is that businesses can talk directly about current skills needs such as digital or manufacturing.
Finally, national government needs to recognise the challenges and support schools on the front line. I have just one small ask: to provide genuinely accessible NHS dental services to these children. Who knows, one of them might be inspired to become a future dentist.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on securing this excellent debate. I declare my interest as an officer of the APPG on financial education for young people.
To equip young people with the best opportunity to succeed in future training and jobs after leaving school is to give them essential life skills. These must include financial literacy, among other work-related skills, and their teaching and fostering in schools must start early to ensure young people are ready to enter and thrive in the workplace. Some 79% of teachers surveyed by Teach First in 2022 believe their pupils are less ready today for the world of work compared to previous years. Recent research from Young Enterprise in its Inspiring Futures programme, which delivers applied learning programmes nationwide to pupils in areas of disadvantage, found that the young people they seek to engage consistently assess themselves as significantly below average in crucial personal attributes such as resilience, confidence, managing money and work-readiness.
As many pupils leave school and go straight into the self-employed workplace as sole traders or entrepreneurs and do not have the money, time or employer commitment to increase their skills, they must be able to rely on the skills they learn at school. Furthermore, school leavers that do go on to undertake further skills training would benefit from the underpinning of a sound financial education. Pupils who complete the Inspiring Futures programme have been shown to progress significantly and exceed their previously average skills assessment. This improvement shows how applied learning can enable young people to acquire critical skills for workplace readiness, including financial literacy, which also enable upward social mobility and positive emotional well-being.
However, the skills landscape is constantly changing. In 2023, the World Economic Forum estimated that six in 10 workers will need re-skilling by 2027, showing the importance of fostering and securing confidence and adaptability in young people now, at both primary and secondary curriculum levels. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated any progress made on this pivotal curricular point, which I may have mentioned previously in your Lordships’ House. It is that confidence and adaptability, combined with financial education and numeracy, that makes young people financially literate.
Financial education alone is not enough; the confidence to apply it and make informed decisions in the real world is vital to a young person realising their full economic potential. Moreover, it is not just the individual who wins. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found in 2021 that 11% of UK workers had experienced a fall in productivity over the preceding three years due to their personal financial situation. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that research by GoHenry complements this finding: it predicts that an extra £6.98 billion would be added to the UK economy annually by prioritising financial education in schools.
This prediction is further strengthened by the Essential Skills Tracker 23, from the Skills Builder Partnership—together with the CIPD, the Edge Foundation and KPMG—which reveals that the cost to the UK economy of low essential skills in 2022 alone was £22 billion. Again, good education alone will not cut it. The same tracker found that 18% of workers with above-average literacy and numeracy levels have a very low essential skills score, meaning that they cannot properly implement and take advantage of that education. The 13% of the population who experience real social mobility—enjoying a strong income, job satisfaction and life satisfaction—combine their education with these all-important skills and confidence.
I was delighted to be part of the panel judging the recent Devon county final of the Young Enterprise Company Programme, which empowers young people to set up and run a student company under the guidance of a volunteer. Students make all the decisions about their business, including managing the company finances, and gain or embed the essential workplace skills I have mentioned. Putting all the fantastic studies I have cited aside, I saw for myself the terrific impact the Young Enterprise Company Programme can have on the young participants’ abilities to learn, adapt, and earn and manage money, and the boost it gives to their confidence and leadership abilities.
I hope that today, I have managed to highlight just how critical financial literacy and these enabling skills are to our young people right now; that they deserve early prioritisation in both primary and secondary school curricula—including through schemes like the Young Enterprise Company Programme, which I hope the Minister will endorse—and that they have the power to create a society with a confident young workforce supporting a more successful UK economy, not only by managing their own finances, future employment and quality of life successfully, but also our collective financial security.
Baroness Fairhead (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare on securing this important debate and on his truly excellent opening speech. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Marks of Hale, on their optimistic maiden speeches. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as set out in the register.
Today we have had a very wide-ranging debate on this huge and hugely important topic. I will focus on just one issue—artificial intelligence—and aim to provide some specific suggestions for skills-building in this area. AI is a revolution. As Jamie Dimon, the former chairman of Citigroup, said:
“Think the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, computing and the internet.”
I know that, as my noble friend Lord Hampton said, AI cannot change a plug, but deploying AI responsibly and securely does have the potential to enhance productivity, improve lives and boost our economy quite significantly. To take just one healthcare example, doctors’ lives can be enhanced massively by AI by combining the spoken word of a consultation with relevant images such as x-rays, adding any of the required prescriptions discussed and possibly scheduling new appointments. The doctor just needs to check the note before authorising, saving huge amounts of time and improving their own lives and those of their patients.
Yet students are not equipped with these skills at school. There are still very few computer scientists entering our market, and businesses are not fully grabbing hold of this capability. A BCC report last September found that less than 50% of SMEs plan to use AI. We need to both increase the skills across the population and reduce the fear of deploying.
Government has a clear role here to educate, promote and, of course, to fund. In schools, more programmes need to be developed to make digital and AI skills adoptable by school leaver age, rather than assuming this happens later. The Department for Education has correctly built AI skills into BTECs and is working with hyperscalers to create bootcamps which link to jobs boards. Whether BTECs continue or the advanced British standard assumes part of that role and picks up the skills of AI, that will not be for 10 years, which is a long time for the current students to wait. More needs to be done now with 14 to 18 year-olds to make them ready for the world of work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, mentioned, it is very difficult to change the curriculum in those years, given its high-stakes, examined nature. However, I urge the DfE to work with headteachers, the British Computer Society, the tech industry, the LSIPs and other interested employers to find a pragmatic solution in the short term. Potentially, a sleeve of UTCs could be added; perhaps there are other solutions.
In further education, real progress has been made since 2018, following the AI industrial strategy. Over 11,000 students have been enrolled in AI and data science conversion courses, and over 25 AI centres for doctoral training—which will train over 1,800 PhD students by 2033—have been created. Much of this was driven by Professor Dame Wendy Hall, with whom I had the privilege of working as a Minister, and whom I consider a national treasure. This momentum needs to be continued. Can the Minister confirm that these programmes will be?
On business education, last week DSIT launched two activities: the AI skills for business competency framework and a flexible AI upskilling fund pilot. These are welcome additions and go some way to removing the skills obstacles and the obstacles of fear surrounding the use of AI. However, they are nascent; the pilot is currently small. If proven out, I hope that it can be expanded rapidly.
That is not enough, and more must be done to promote AI effectively and to inform and connect, which is something that the Government could do. They could promote success stories, highlight major programmes—possibly within government—where the adoption of digital and AI have massively improved productivity, highlight companies like Uber which offer additional AI building skills to all of its 3 million drivers, not for the benefit of Uber but for the benefit of their people, or promote our own tech industries, AI unicorns like Quantexa, which help provide the data and help companies store it, to ensure that IP continues to reside in the UK.
Playbooks for SMEs need to be created to help them take those steps. These must be supported by a database of excellent case studies. As I discovered as Minister, SMEs like to see companies that look like themselves and have done it like themselves, and that is the way to encourage them.
Finally, more needs to be done to harness the offerings of AI companies which are willing to work with Governments as part of social responsibility. I sit on the board of Oracle, which works with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has a programme for training 50,000 people to build AI skills, primarily focusing on women, and works with government and businesses. A lot of our businesses and other hyperscalers would be prepared to work with the Government on that.
This all needs to be part of an overall framework and strategy, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare said at the beginning. I sincerely hope that we look to future skills, and AI is part of them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the chance to have this debate.
I work very closely with the Better Hiring Institute, an organisation I recommend to noble Lords. A trend that we are increasingly seeing is for skills-based hiring. That is where, rather than listing qualifications or CV items, a company gets down to the core of what skills it needs for a particular job and then goes looking for a match. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said, skills change rapidly. Companies look for the skills that they need now. For example, if a new AI product comes out, they want their people to have command of it—if somebody is offering a course in it, that is what they want. This is therefore driving a real interest in micro-credentials: short courses that will bring someone up to speed in the area that an employer needs.
Together, these trends offer great opportunities to government, if government will take an interest and involve itself. First, if the Government will work with the recruitment industry, which is certainly prepared to work with them, there is the opportunity to gather data to get a grip on what skills are required and where, as well as on how the trends are developing. Secondly, on the other side, there is the opportunity to help the process of moving into micro-credentials by helping develop an underlying system for identifying which of these have quality—again, that is partly about processing data, but it is an area where you want a very reliable source, so we get back to the issue of individual learning accounts and all the scams that went with them. We need to integrate that sort of structure of learning with proper pastoral care and careers guidance and work that into the structure of apprenticeships and other larger qualifications. I hope that the Open University will take a close interest in that.
This comes back to what other noble Lords have said about the need for employers to take a very close interest in driving training. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Hale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, made that point in the context of LSIPs. To pick up on what my noble friend Lord Lilley said, we must allow no escape via immigration. We have to train our own people. We want to pay our own people more and to have a workforce with ever-rising skills, capability and pay. We must not allow that to be undermined by people going abroad to buy the skills in cheaply. We must focus people on training here. As my noble friend Lord Lingfield said, the links between good education organisations and industry, so that education is in tune with what industry needs, is a very important thing to see develop.
Turning to schools, noble Lords know that I am the proprietor of the Good Schools Guide. In the next few years, I suspect that we will have a real look at what we want a school leaver to know. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Baker will be at the forefront of that discussion. The Government have shown, through their interest in the ABS, the idea that they want school leavers to have a broader understanding of things than we are providing now. The direction is clearly there.
Micro-credentials will again have a strong role here. It used to be the case that the Open University provided courses that people could do as a supplement to A-levels, but that was driven out by universities being unconstructive in valuing them. Given that universities will now take qualifications from all over the world and from all kinds of backgrounds, they are being very unhelpful in so narrowly insisting on the qualifications they get out of the UK school system. I hope that they will become partners in broadening education—and, indeed, in broadening the education that they provide themselves. My degree in physics consisted of nuclear physics; it did not go beyond that, not even to understand how the weather works. My daughter’s education in the arts does not involve anything to do with economics or business. Why not? We are not educating people for the world that they will have to face outside, so we need to look at that.
That comes back to what many noble Lords have been saying about BTECs. T-levels are too massive and too specialised. If we are broadening people’s education, that is not the road to go down. We will learn something from them, but BTECs occupy a much more important place for many of our young people. We absolutely must guard that.
I will pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said; Shakespeare, yes, but let us learn it the way it was written—which is to be performed and to be understood. My wife taught Shakespeare in prisons, and it went down a storm because they understood the stories and liked the bloodshed. To learn it as prose criticism is deadly. We want to get back to a shared culture; no country survives without a shared culture. Something like performing Shakespeare is a really important part of that.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Marks of Hale, on their maiden speeches, and of course my noble friend Lord Aberdare on his very comprehensive introduction.
At the outset, I say that I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said about EBacc and Progress 8. They both need to go. They are holding the arts back in our schools and beyond. A future Government should make that pledge before they come to power.
The mover of this Motion, my noble friend Lord Aberdare, had to point out to me that “education” is not mentioned in it, even if it seems nevertheless logical that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will answer for Education. Such is the modern-day conventional assumption that what we call skills and education go together hand in hand, but that does not have to be true, depending of course on how one defines both words. “Skill”, like “innovation”, has become a watchword, even a buzzword, to the extent that it is perhaps too easy to stop seeing what the word means and instead pay lip service to something we have not thought carefully enough about, and perhaps to promote certain narrower meanings above other meanings. For instance, my research tells me—I bow of course to the expert linguists and historians among us—that “skill” comes from the Old Norse “skilja”, which seems to have had quite a number of past meanings, including, believe it or not, to break up, to separate, to discern, to distinguish, to understand, to find out and to decide. Even further back in time, this word was used to denote knowledge or even divine wisdom, which begs questions about the separation of knowledge and practice that we have heard about today in this debate. There are meanings here that are wider than a skill being simply the supposedly or conventionally right way of doing something, or learning something that becomes automatic because it is practised. The original etymology seems to contain other things like analysis, breaking things up and perhaps putting them back together again—deconstruction in other words—critical thought, and even perhaps contemplation, which our more modern, narrower understanding of “skill” does not seem so much to contain.
This older understanding is important because, over a number of decades, education itself has changed significantly within the UK. The particular modern usage fits our current, very specifically framed, educational system. Of course, as we have already heard, there are many different kinds of skills, including life skills, craft skills, and green skills. But the idea of skills that are necessary for specific jobs, including the job of study itself, nevertheless holds a kind of primacy within this world of skills. Education itself, particularly higher education, has become monetised and therefore transactional in a way that was not true 30 years ago, but is now very true since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and the accompanying expectations that an increasing number of students now have. Among those expectations I point out three: first, that students can get a piece of paper telling them that they have an extremely good degree that validates their course of study; secondly, they can get a well-paid job at the end of their course, which is part of the expected transaction; and thirdly, they have learned the skills that will equip them for that job. That is true even of those who follow the academic route, because of the change in culture of higher education.
Therefore, when the Government talk the rhetoric of “low-value” courses and send out the message that the arts and humanities are less important by cutting the top-up grants to those university courses, they are also saying that the skills learned for those courses or during that time of study are less important because the skills, like that important piece of paper which gives you your grade or the examination that determines that grade, must be something that according to the modern understanding of a skill is quantifiable because it has an objective, predetermined use.
I will make just one further point. The irony is that the real world thinks differently. Companies consistently want well-rounded people, not necessarily those with very specific, narrowly defined skill sets, important though those might be. I also know from my own experience closer to home that not all colleges, such as drama colleges, are interested in the skills that enable you to get a good degree. They look for things beyond specific skill sets such as passion, enthusiasm and originality of thought, which perhaps in the “skilja” definition might also be thought of as skills.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this fascinating and informative debate. I congratulate my friend the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on securing it, and both maiden speakers on their excellent and insightful contributions. I look forward to hearing more from both of them in due course. I also declare my interests in technology as an adviser to Boston and to BPP University.
I will talk about three things this afternoon: talent, technology, and Kenneth Baker. We have such an opportunity to be skilled for success in the fourth industrial revolution. I will take the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, first. I am so privileged to be able to call him my friend. He has done more than anybody in this country to drive forward opportunities for those who all too often have been dismissed or underrated by the state and society through pushing technical education. He deserves the respect and thanks of this House and every single individual across this country for everything that he has done and continues to do so vociferously and effectively.
Skills for success in the fourth industrial revolution—what will it take? First, we must understand that inclusion and innovation are the golden threads. In reality, inclusion enables innovation. We need to consider AI, blockchain, the internet of things and all the elements of these new technologies as tools in our human hands. They are extraordinarily powerful but are still tools. We would not in any sense give an individual a powerful tool without first giving them the skills to make a success of using it. If we are to get optimal outcomes, not least from artificial intelligence and all the other new technologies, it needs to be human-led—human in the loop, human over the loop.
What do we need to think about in terms of society, our democracy and our economy? First, socially: imagine what we could achieve with this skills approach if we had truly personalised skills training and education in real time, considering not just the skills that we need to succeed in AI but AI’s impact on skills. Secondly, the issues goes to our very democracy. Skills need to abound. In a year when over 40% of the world will go to the polls, how can we ensure that all our electors have the skills to make sense of what is out there, not least the proliferation of deepfakes? Media literacy, digital literacy and, yes, financial literacy are all required if people are to be able to play their full part as citizens in our democracy. Moving beyond that, there needs to be much more consideration of risk literacy and resilience literacy. In addition, can we put an end to calling so much of this “soft skills”? These are not soft skills but essential skills, and without them the world is incredibly hard.
I move to the economy—why not have a stat in our debate? PwC says that, by 2030, AI will increase GDP by £15.7 trillion a year but, without the skills, how can we ensure that we are all enabled to take advantage of those economic and social opportunities?
What do we need to change? I offer at least three things. First is the curriculum—yes, in schools first but, beyond that, in higher education and across all training programmes. We need nothing short of a full transformation of the curriculum. Would my noble friend the Minister agree? I know that, when she comes to wind up, she will offer examples of elements throughout the curriculum. It is clear that these are pockets, certainly positive ones, but she must agree that we are far from the complete garment.
Is the Minister aware of the accreditation in ethical AI that is being led by the current Lord Mayor, who is doing such an excellent job and understands this area so clearly? Does she agree that we need accreditation for all our data scientists, developers and deployers of AI? You would not have an accountant, lawyer or any other professional unaccredited and unqualified. Would that not be a positive boon and an opportunity for the UK, not least in ethical AI?
Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that, whatever the training and the skills programme, it must be both inclusive by design and accessible by all? Can she assure the House that this is the case for all skills and training programmes? If not, why not, and when can we say that this will be the case? We need to move beyond STEM and even STEAM: every voice in every decision should be skilled to articulate and contribute and to have the skills that it takes to make a success individually, connectedly and collectively.
When it comes to STEAM, I believe that there is only one place where we should consider this: if AI was to the human intellect what steam was to human strength, then you get the picture. Steam literally changed time. It is now our time to completely transform the skills ecosystem in the United Kingdom if we are going to enable, empower and unleash all that human talent and enable human-led, human-in-the-loop and human-over-the-loop AI and all the other technologies. If we get it right, it will not just increase all our skills but fundamentally change for the better the relationship between citizen and state.
There has been talk of the lack of a skills strategy. We need to go further. We need a vision for skills. No one even gets off the sofa for a strategy, but a vision for skills, to enable, empower and unleash all that human talent, is our mission for today and should be our mission for all days. #OurAIfutures.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this important debate. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Hale and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for their excellent maiden speeches.
I will make two points, declaring my interests as an academic and a practising engineer, as set out in the register. The first is on the acute shortage of skilled engineers and technicians, who are so important for the success of the economy, and the second is on climate change and the pressing need for green skills to be embedded in our education system.
A recent report led by the Institution of Engineering and Technology estimated that there is a shortfall of around 200,000 workers in the STEM sector. It called on the Government to help tackle the UK’s engineering skills shortage by embedding engineering into the current school curriculum. This is consistent with the findings of the recent inquiry of this House’s Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned. Like them, I was privileged to have been a member of that committee.
A key finding of our report published in December is that there has been a significant decline in recent years in the number of pupils taking up technical subjects during key stage 4—14 to 16 year-olds. This is coupled with a wider decline in the opportunities available throughout the education of 11 to 16 year-olds to develop practical skills. Our committee heard from many witnesses that the current GCSE curriculum is too full and overly focused on academic pathways. Our report recommended a more balanced national curriculum to enable all pupils to study at least one technical or vocational subject should they wish. We recommended that the EBacc performance measure should be abandoned, as was so forcefully advocated in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. Creative, technical and vocational skills must not be sacrificed in favour of an overly full curriculum of academic subjects, as so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
The UK must do much more to encourage children to develop STEM skills, including practical skills, and to make full use of them. This is not just about universities and higher education. Although we have outstanding engineering courses in our universities right across the country, more than half our young people are not suited to universities. The importance of further education colleges has been overlooked for far too long and the opportunities for attractive degree apprenticeships are growing. Both these routes were spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Harrington of Watford. They could have a major impact in reviving the fortunes of vocational and technical education, critical for the engineering industries. It is highly significant that in Germany 20% of 25 year-olds have a higher technical qualification, whereas in the UK the present figure is only 4%. That is because in Germany there is a much wider range of opportunities in technical education for young people.
My second point relates to climate change and green skills, about which the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have spoken. There is an urgent need to fast-track vital green engineering skills into our economy by 2030 at the latest. Led by the Royal Academy of Engineering, Engineers 2030 is an education and policy programme rethinking engineering and technology skills for our future world. It challenges how the engineering workforce needs to be different and how we should teach and professionally develop young people. We need to do things differently. The reality is that right now we lack sufficient numbers of engineers and technicians to deliver even the commitments already enshrined in legislation. The demand for substantial growth in green jobs comes at a time when engineering skills have largely stagnated over the past 10 years. In higher education, the proportion of students studying engineering has remained at around 5% for the past 15 years in this country; this compares with 22% in Germany.
A large proportion of young children have a strong preference to contribute to solving environmental problems and achieving net zero. It must therefore be a top priority that we equip them with the green skills and technical tools to do this, particularly promoting greater engagement of girls and young women. Gender diversity in engineering remains largely static. According to EngineeringUK, women made up just 17% of the engineering workforce in 2021. The real barrier to girls entering the engineering profession is perception. Many girls miss out because they perceive that engineering is only about machinery or hard hats and construction—apparently subjects only for boys—and they do not want to be thought of as the odd one out. This mistaken perception is also widely held by parents and by many teachers. In reality, engineering is very much wider than machinery or hard hats and construction. Engineering is simply applied science, which employs—I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—very clever people. It covers a huge range of subjects, many of them involving green skills that will build the net zero world of tomorrow, ranging from biotech to environmental solutions and from innovative new materials to novel energy systems such as hydrogen, all of which are potentially hugely attractive to both boys and girls.
In summary, both our economy and our path to net zero depend critically on engineering. There is a substantial untapped resource of future engineers and technicians—especially girls—in our schools. We need to address this urgently and plug the skills gap. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for raising this important debate and I congratulate both my noble friends Lord Marks of Hale and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell on their maiden speeches; I look forward to hearing more of their valuable contributions.
Reading the newspaper headlines this week illustrates the seriousness of the situation in which we currently find ourselves, with regard to the quality of life for many in the country and the real need for skills for the success of the UK economy. We are told that there are a record 2.8 million people off work with long-term illness; that thousands of youngsters appear to have given up on school since the pandemic, with the highest number of so-called “ghost children” being recorded; and, to top it off, that almost a quarter of children aged 10 and 11 in British primary schools are clinically obese and that, for pupils in the poorest areas, the figure rises above 30%. However, with the right life skills for both young and old, this can be turned around.
We need only to look at further headlines to see think tanks calling for a wholesale curriculum and assessment review of the education system to add new topics such as financial education and mental health. The advanced British standard may indeed be an improvement on the current framework, but it is years away. The existing status quo is centred on teaching for exams that students will sit, but that is not necessarily what will help them in real life.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege to visit a school academy in one of the most deprived boroughs of London. The academy is the envy of its peers in both the public and private sector, boasting an Oxbridge acceptance rate of 15% and a Russell group acceptance rate of 64%. I asked the principal how she achieved these results. Her response was that “Everyone, both teachers and pupils alike, wants to be here”. The same message came across in a business session recently, when discussing culture and values. The adage “If you love what you do, it is not a job” could not be more true. If we can create an environment where people feel good about multiple aspects of their life and in control of their situation, that will give them the confidence and ability to find a job that they love, grow the economy and attain a high quality of life.
The skills that make a difference can be narrowed down to four key pillars: food education, physical education, financial education and social education. Food education is paramount because you are what you eat; your gut is your second brain and what you put into it matters. Physical education follows, as it boosts energy, confidence and sleep quality, as well as reducing anxiety and stress. Financial education will then enable you to live the life that you want within your means. The right basic knowledge and small regular savings can create a potentially life-changing sum over the long term. Lastly, I will concentrate on social education, which is becoming increasingly vital as smartphones take over our lives.
During my visit to the same academy, the principal flagged that one of the few issues that they did experience was poor social interaction, and I noticed that some of the pupils, when they talked to me, did not look me in the eye and had trouble engaging directly. I think about my own career and consider myself extremely fortunate to have worked in the same room, paradoxically, with individuals who left school at 16 with no qualifications, all the way to rocket scientists with PhDs in astrophysics. The glue that bound us together was confidence and self-belief in what we were doing, which was derived purely from real, in-person, human interaction.
However, in the current day, by the age of 11 some 91% of children in the UK own a smartphone. The restaurant chain Prezzo has found that its customers between the ages of 12 and 27 suffer from “menu anxiety” and are too socially nervous to engage in a conversation with a waiter, preferring to order by QR code. The most truly shocking statistic is from a recent survey which found that a quarter of 18 to 34 year-olds have never answered their phone. This surely must be addressed as a top priority.
It will not surprise the Minster to hear me ask the Government how they will increase awareness on food education, physical education and financial education—but I would like to ask something else. Please can she update the House on the expected timeframe for a compulsory ban on smartphones in schools, to address the clear and present danger of in-person social interaction, which is arguably the most important life skill, becoming a thing of the past?
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Aberdare on securing this very important debate. He has undoubtedly touched a particular vein here in the House, with tremendous engagement from all participants. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Hale and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, on their excellent maiden speeches.
The much-vaunted UK knowledge economy masks an inherent imbalance with, and under-celebration of, our skills economy. “Education, education, education” has enabled our universities to blossom—perhaps at the expense of our colleges. For several decades, we have hollowed out and failed to invest adequately in our skills infrastructure. This has been further compounded by the aspiration for a degree, with all the supposed hierarchical status it promises.
It is regrettable that it has taken significant skills gaps and chronic skills shortages to deliver the wake-up call to UK plc of the pivotal importance of skills. We must go well beyond the virtue signalling of apprenticeships. Government policy has placed great importance on front-skilling the school pupils while neglecting their older siblings’ and parents’ needs for upskilling and reskilling. We are failing to value and appropriately fund the technical skills, the digital skills, the future skills, the green skills—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—and even skills foresighting. At the centre of everything, we need bold leadership and sustained political attention, kept honest by a strong voice from industry and a joint commitment to long-term investment.
I will speak on apprenticeships, on the colleges on which we rely for so much of skills training and, finally, if time permits, on the experience in my own maritime industry. Apprenticeships are a vital part of investing in individuals to deliver better skills outcomes for the wider economy. My understanding is that over 250,000 apprenticeships are commenced per year. This is not enough and, as we have heard, it does not adequately address the vital SME need. Figures from the OBR indicate that receipts by government for the apprenticeship levy will reach close to £4 billion in 2024-25, while the apprenticeship budget stands at £2.7 billion. Is the balance going to a good end in training or education?
We know there has been a significant increase in the number of young NEETs. Something must be done for this group. Yet apprenticeships remain the only part of the education sector where 16 to 18 year-olds are not fully funded by the state. Can this be addressed in any way? There needs to be a joined-up approach to apprenticeship across government, with direct ministerial oversight.
Now I turn to colleges, on which we depend so heavily for training away from work. For the colleges, this is a particularly challenging time. We rely on them to tackle the chronic and acute skills shortages, particularly among struggling SMEs and those sectors blighted by Brexit and the pandemic. If I may paraphrase the words of a friend, Dr Paul Little, principal of the renowned Glasgow College, I fear we are sleepwalking into a vocationally light future with an underpowered skills system and an underinvested skills infrastructure.
On the maritime experience, we are in fact very fortunate with the training options in maritime. We have heard a lot of quite depressing statistics one way and another today, and areas of great concern, but I think this is a success story, and credit goes to the Government for that. A number of universities are offering excellent degree courses and some professional organisations are offering specific professional qualifications in significant shore-based specialisations such as law, insurance and ship-broking.
There is time to concentrate only on seafarer training. We are indeed fortunate that seafarer training has operated essentially on a global basis through the supranational regulator, the International Maritime Organization, which is based across and up the river, and the UK’s national Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Our UK maritime sector is blessed in having a close tripartite relationship between the ship owners, the educators and workforce representatives, convened for almost a century by the UK Merchant Navy Training Board. This is borne out of inherent concern for seafarers’ safety, both coastal and deep sea, placing a higher value on competency and proficiency than on merely gaining a qualification.
I should add that the SMarT funding arrangement has been a great success for the training of seafarers, with 50% of the cost paid by government. This scheme supports seafarers’ training while ensuring a flow of very well-qualified seafarers—when they come ashore—into the maritime professional services, where Britain is the global industry leader. We are also fortunate in having a Maritime Skills Commission and blessed to have four seafarer education and training colleges, located in Glasgow, Warsash in Southampton, South Tyneside and Lowestoft. The skills and training acquired in these colleges are still recognised as the gold standard for maritime skills worldwide, and long may this last.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, noted the strong contribution of the City of London Corporation, City & Guilds and the livery companies to education and training. It is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, is a fellow liveryman of the Goldsmiths’ Company, which makes an outstanding contribution to education and training. When I was elected to the City of London Corporation, I served on a number of school boards. I quickly realised that one area of great importance is aspiration. The City’s colleges and schools have succeeded in imbuing and developing aspiration in staff and students. I do not believe that any of us has mentioned aspiration, but it is vital for teachers and their students alike. I could wish to associate myself with very many speakers, but I do so with what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said about the value of foreign language teaching.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, certain themes come across in trying to sum up what has been said in this debate. A clear one is the fact that we do not seem to have a handle on training for skills—a skill you can actually do in later life—or we have a dozen badly attached handles on it. We have an education system that is plugged into passing X number of little dots.
It is also an education system which says that getting your A-levels and going to university is what you should be aiming for, regardless of things such as how much money you will earn and what you actually want to do. You are taught by a group of people who have done this, which I am afraid is one of our problems: we have this conveyor going through. When it comes to skills and training et cetera, we know that you did things such as what used to be NVQ level 4 or HND level 5 when you messed up your A-levels. That was true when I was at a college doing my A-levels. Regardless of whatever you wanted to achieve in life, that is what you were supposed to do. It has become incredibly apparent that we have not thrown that off.
I do not know what hold the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has over the Whips’ Office, but allowing him to have the first dig at any debate means that an Education Minister really has to have a word with their friends. There has to be something here, but the noble Lord is essentially right. We have not taken skills seriously enough. They are secondary options. It probably goes back to grammar schools and secondary moderns, and beyond that, but that is what we have.
I have a couple of special interests that I should declare. I am dyslexic and president of the British Dyslexia Association. I also work for a disability assistance company, Microlink. One thing I have discovered, and indeed raised at many points, is that if you tell one group: “You’ve got to pass English, you’ve got to pass Maths”—which means remembering formulae, when all dyslexics have bad short-term memory; I think I have met one person who denied that in about 40 years—you have actually created a problem. Other groups have problems with it as well. Other people just do not learn because they do not think it applies to them, but you have still got to get English and Maths.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, spoke about how your phone has a calculator in it. The calculator has been around an awfully long time; it just happens to be in a convenient place now. There is something else on his phone he did not mention: the voice operation button. Every single computer that you buy today allows you to talk and turns that into text, then will read stuff back to you; it is built in. Twenty years ago, you had to plug the stuff into it, but now it is there. We have an automatic way in to allow you to access information. We are still not fully taking that on board.
Ten years ago, I had a long battle to allow people to take apprenticeship qualifications without passing a written English test—true, it was a tapped English test, but it still had to be a written English test. The examples of that were ridiculous in the end; it was basically that they had not thought of it. A lot of the briefing for this debate spoke about good standards in basic skills; if you are going to expand the base of people who will take these qualifications, you must allow other ways in. Many people struggle with English; it is a difficult language. If you want the academic reason why, the English got conquered by the French and created this non-phonetic structure that we pride ourselves on taking other words into—learn that without a phonetic route.
Going through, you must have a degree of flexibility. The Minister is probably the most informed person on this subject that I have seen sitting in that place in this House. I hope she will be able to give me some assurance that we will make sure that that barrier is not there in the future.
The second thing I should say here goes back to the point that we know what the education pathway is. We also know that the most important people for influencing what you will try to do are your parents; teachers come second. We know that if they had been a banker, for instance, you are likely to become a banker—or an actor or politician; in all those cases, you will think of doing that. If they are unemployed, that is what you think happens to you.
We have one big challenge: careers pathway advice in the future. We have spoken about this, and I believe the Government have been talking about it and doing things. It is a big challenge; do not underestimate it. The full benefits of any change now will probably not be seen for many years, possibly decades, but we have to start at some point. If we are to expand this to take in all the new technologies and developments, we must start now. Can the Minister give us some guidance about how this expanded knowledge of what is available is out there?
I will give a little example of where we need to do it. I am part of our DCMS team and we get presentations by the creative industries—film, et cetera. Do noble Lords know what happens to the back-room boys of the film industry? They are usually graduates, often in English, who decide that they want to go into the creative arts. Then they have to retrain, work on the job and spend time running around. They do not take HND or NVQ qualifications at level 4 or 5 in the subjects they need; they may be difficult to find. Indeed, there are local pathways for skills at this level, which is roughly the training, if I have it right—I have a nod there from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who is retaking her place, so I will take that as a win. But that is a local pathway, not a national one, and this is a national industry. Surely, we should be expanding our national careers structure to take in level 4 and 5, and say where you can go, because there is a huge unmet need. That need is historic; the first time I heard of a lack of technician-level training in this House was well over 30 years ago.
We have got to start to address—the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was the first to say it—the idea that we are not taking these things seriously. Unless you do that, you will continue down this path of ignoring where the demand is where you can generate a better than living wage, and go on to do other things.
I could have expanded on these points—a lot of the other information was about social skills—but there are just a few seconds left to me. Everybody says, “tell the teacher to do it”. Teachers have an awful lot to do. Are we encouraging children in our schools—for instance, in sports clubs and arts organisations—to get a taste in school, then go out to where they will meet adults they will have to talk to and interact with? You can acquire many social skills there in a non-professionalised way, with people they may look up to, not people they are forced to say “Sir” or “Miss” to in a classroom. That would be a better way forward.
We can try to make school a smorgasbord of trying things—trying a few essentials to go on and do other things to acquire more skills, inside and outside the structure. Unless we get out of the idea that we are just getting rubber-stamped to a certain level on subjects, then told, “Off you go, life is perfect”, we will continue to fail. It is quite clear that most of us do not learn that way, or we do not learn successfully. Unless we can embrace that at a more fundamental level than we do now, we will merely continue to make the mistakes of today.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He always speaks with such engagement on this topic.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for bringing this important subject to our Chamber today. I know that he has a strong interest in the subject, as do many Peers who have engaged in this debate that demonstrates the cross-party support for the importance of skills in our society. I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord alluded to the learning undertaken by our Welsh forefathers. Modern Wales has much to be commended on in its innovative work. At Skills Competition Wales, over 280 talented young people from across the country were recognised for their outstanding vocational skills at an awards ceremony at Trinity Saint David University in March this year.
I congratulate both our maiden speech contributors. I am sure that we will welcome their future contribution to the House.
In Breaking down the Barriers to Opportunity, Keir Starmer set out clearly Labour’s fifth mission in government: to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, at every stage, and shatter the class ceiling. We will track our progress on this mission through three stages of education: boosting child development, with half a million more children hitting the early learning goals by 2030; achieving a sustained rise in young people’s school outcomes; and building young people’s life skills with an expansion of high-quality education, employment and training routes, so that more people than ever are on pathways with good prospects by 2030.
The Office for National Statistics, based in Newport, estimates that there were 851,000 young people not in employment, education or training between October and December 2023. That number has risen by 20,000 compared to the same period in 2022, and accounts for 12% of all 16 to 24 year-olds.
Education is at the heart of Labour’s mission to expand opportunity. From our earliest years through to learning or retraining as adults, gaining knowledge, skills and qualifications, and exploring our interests and abilities, enables us to build the lives that we want, and the society that we share. Today, the best education that our country has to offer is not available to every young person. The opportunity to learn and train as an adult is limited and available to too few. At this point, I want to acknowledge the work of the Open University; it is a marvellous organisation, initiated of course by Harold Wilson.
Our mission to spread opportunity means enabling everyone to access the opportunities that excellent education brings. Despite much talk, the Government have not developed the apprenticeships and skills pathways that will allow adults to reskill and upskill throughout their life. The result is that we have too few people who have the skills we need for growth. So what will Labour do to redress this huge deficit? Retraining and upskilling will need to be locally based and tailored to the needs of each community: plumbers to fit new heat pumps; engineers to lead the application of AI; and solar power fitters to harness renewables. We will set up new technical excellence colleges in all parts of the country, so that people have the specialist skills that local businesses need, and transform the apprenticeship levy to give employers the flexibility they need to train their workforce in new and relevant skills.
During National Apprenticeship Week in early February, Labour took the opportunity to announce further changes and policy initiatives. We set out our plans to boost skills training and drive economic growth, as data revealed that a decade of decline in apprenticeships and training is holding Britain back. Apprenticeship starts have declined, and the Government have failed to equip individuals and the economy with the skills to meet national challenges, including the transition to net zero and rising demand for digital skills. To reverse this downward trend, we will train over 1,000 new careers advisors to provide professional advice and guidance at schools and colleges, alongside high-quality work experience for young people.
Labour will give businesses the flexibility that they are asking for to train their workforce and deliver growth. We will start by turning the apprenticeships levy into a growth and skills levy. The Government’s current levy has seen millions of pounds that should be used for skills training going unspent, even as businesses report growing skills shortages. Giving businesses flexibility will ensure that this money can be better spent on a greater range of training courses, including basic English, basic maths and digital skills, so that businesses can fill gaps and people can gain new skills.
As part of a wider package of reform, we will establish Skills England, a new national body, driving forward a national ambition to meet the skills needs of the next decade. This will be driven by pushing power and decisions on skills spending out from Westminster to local communities, so those communities can better match up skills training with their local business needs and grow local and regional economies. My noble friend Lord Griffiths made many apposite points regarding the need for skills in, for example, the creative sector. Young people and adults are ambitious for their families’ futures; they want to learn new skills and get new jobs, or progress at work, but they are being let down. We will reverse this trend. We will give businesses the flexibility that they need to train people up, from digital technologies to the green skills needed to tackle climate change.
An important aspect of the skills agenda is digital skills, again noted by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. We lack a properly developed strategy. We need a digitally literate population. If we fail, we will be left with a lack of opportunity, particularly in employment. We rely on the internet, as many noble Lords have said, for applying for jobs, accessing education and training, banking—except for my noble friend Lord Griffiths—paying bills and accessing other services. People find employment online and many social media sites are available where professionals can network. Last year’s consumer digital index, which is run by Lloyds Bank and commissioned by the DfE, reported that there are about 13 million people in the UK with very low digital capability, which means they
“are likely to struggle interacting with online services”.
Furthermore, we need to provide adults with the opportunity to improve their literacy skills. The National Literacy Trust estimates that more than 16.4% of the adult population are functionally illiterate. How can people improve their digital skills if they do not already have good literacy skills?
Adult skills spending has been cut under this Government. Last December, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that
“total adult skills spending in 2024–25 will still be 23% below 2009–10 levels. Spending on classroom-based adult education has fallen especially sharply”.
This is driven by falling learner numbers and real-terms cuts in funding rates. In 2024-25, it will be more than 40% below 2009-10 levels. This is very damaging to our economy, and the situation needs to be reversed.
Digital skills are crucial for the future of our economy, businesses and workforce. That is why a core pillar of Labour’s industrial strategy is to harness data for the public good and to transform digital skills. Young people need to understand developing technologies to be able to use them. Our curriculum review will embed digital literacy and skills throughout children’s learning.
Can the Minister say how the Government are working with businesses to understand the digital skills needs of the future? How can all skills needs be best met now, and what can the Government do to future-proof our skills needs as a country? I add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who questioned the defunding of BTEC courses. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these extremely important matters.
Despite the rhetoric, the Government have overseen a decade of decline in skills and training opportunities which is holding Britain back. From digital to green skills, childcare to social care, a Labour Government will harness the talents and abilities of the British people so we can strengthen our economy and break down barriers to opportunity. We will provide more training opportunities so people can gain new skills, access better jobs and grow our economy. That is the difference we will make.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for securing this very important and well-supported debate. It was an honour to be present to hear the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Marks of Hale and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell. Listening to a maiden speech reminds us all just what a privilege it is to serve in your Lordships’ House.
If I may, I will step back and remind noble Lords what the Government are looking to achieve with our overall programme of skills reform. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, started by talking about the need for a strategy. I hope he recognises many, if not all, of the seven points in his speech in the Government’s approach.
The Skills for Jobs White Paper, published in January 2021, is the blueprint for our reforms. It sets out the case for change and the vital need to drive up skills in our country. We know that a third of productivity growth can be attributed to increases in skills levels. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Baker for his work over many years to bring a focus to the skills agenda. But we still face significant gaps in skills at higher technical levels, with level 4/5 being the highest qualification for 10% of adults, compared to 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada.
My noble friend Lord Patten was absolutely right to highlight the importance of improving productivity in the public sector as well, and my noble friend Lord Holmes was right to stress the importance of inclusivity and innovation in developing skills programmes.
The gaps in our skills are creating significant challenges in the labour market. As we heard from a number of noble Lords, employers report that they cannot find people with the skills they need, particularly the technical skills that drive innovation and enable adoption of new technologies. I acknowledge the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, regarding foreign languages, but I may need to address some of them in writing.
As it stands, a quarter of job vacancies in the UK are due to skills shortages. Some estimates show that, by 2030, we will face a global skills shortage of 85 million. There are major challenges for the future, as we know from research published by the department’s Unit for Future Skills, which estimates that between 10% and 30% of jobs could be automated through AI. The significance of AI was brought out powerfully by my noble friend Lady Fairhead. That is why we have introduced a series of reforms, with the aim of developing a world-leading skills system that is employer-focused and fit for the future. This is backed by an investment of £3.8 billion over the course of this Parliament to strengthen higher and further education. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, spoke about the need for stability in the skills system. Probably the strongest thing we hear from employers is that they want stability so they can plan and invest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked about opportunities for lifelong learning. I remind her of the important lifelong learning entitlement, which will transform opportunities to upskill, reskill and develop skills throughout one’s lifetime.
I will divide my remaining remarks into three broad categories, focusing on an employer-led skills system, our support for priority growth sectors, and the reform of qualifications. I hope that addresses the spirit of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about looking at this issue in the round and not in a fragmented way.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said more eloquently than I can, employers need to be at the heart of our skills system. The Government have worked hard to bring education and business together so that skills and training provision directly support economic growth and productivity. The Government are proud of their new high-quality apprenticeship programme. Nearly 700 apprenticeship standards are now available, covering around 70% of occupations in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about the drop in the number of apprenticeships. I think he knows what I am going to say: we focused very much on quality, so we took out apprenticeships that did not deliver for apprentices. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that I am not sure what changing the name of the apprenticeship levy achieves, but I think that Labour’s proposals are estimated to halve the number of apprenticeships, which would have a very serious impact on our economy.
I thank my noble friend Lord Harrington for acknowledging the value of the apprenticeship levy. I will address some of his concerns, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about reform of the levy. We already pay 100% of the apprenticeship training costs for 16 to 21 year-olds in respect of SMEs. We have also doubled the levy transfer limit from 25% to 50% so that levy payers can maximise the benefit of their levy funds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, gave us her expert insight into the importance of level 3 apprenticeships. As she is aware, they are the most popular apprenticeships, accounting for 43.3% of starts in the current academic year. We now have 229 apprenticeships standards at level 3 and an active apprenticeships campaign promoting both level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships.
My noble friend Lord Harrington noted the importance of manufacturing apprenticeships. The Government are investing £50 million in a two-year pilot to support providers to deliver more high-value apprenticeships, particularly in areas such as engineering, advanced manufacturing, green technologies and life sciences.
My noble friend Lord Lucas talked about the importance of micro-credentials. He will be aware that we have introduced skills bootcamps, which provide flexible training for adults aged 19 and over, which are directly linked to roles in priority sectors. These, again, were courses that were designed and delivered in partnership with employers to respond to their needs. There are now more than 1,000 skills bootcamps available across England.
Turning to the local skills improvement plans, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her leadership in this area. I was glad to hear how important and innovative that direct link is—if I followed her remarks correctly—between business, higher education and further education, just getting people in the room together to work out what an area needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about oversight of the LSIPs. The employer representative bodies are now leading on implementation and review of the plans, and each of those bodies will publish a public annual progress report in June 2024 and June 2025, setting out their progress.
We also think the introduction of institutes of technology is extremely important. They are collaborations between colleges, universities and business, designed to deliver the best technical education and help businesses to get the workforce they need. We will have 21 of these new institutes in place from September.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, said that—I hope I wrote this down correctly—20% of adults in Germany have higher technical qualifications, and that this is an important gap in our skills landscape. That is why we have introduced HTQs to meet exactly that need at levels 4 and 5. They have a quality mark that is awarded only to those qualifications that deliver the skills employers need. That also speaks to the point about recognition of qualifications that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, referred to. To date, 172 qualifications have been approved as HTQs across seven routes. The Government have also sought to prioritise five sectors that are critical to driving our growth in the 21st century: green industries, digital technologies, life sciences, creative industries, and advanced manufacturing.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, all talked about the importance of green industries. The net-zero growth plan sets out how the Department for Education is empowering people to get skills for green jobs, but this challenge is a very significant one, whether it be in relation to workers in offshore wind or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, used as an example, in relation to heat pumps. We are funding a range of apprenticeship standards in green occupations, including level 4 electrical power networks engineering and new low-carbon heating technician apprenticeships. We also have T-levels to support this area in construction engineering and land management.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the nature action plan. On timing, the technical answer is “soon” but not “in due course”—that is the good news. We have made a public commitment that it will be published in the first half of this year, and that public commitment still stands. I think that is “soon”.
Digital technologies are a foundation for our economy, but 18% of the UK labour force do not have the essential digital skills that they need for work. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, asked about cross-departmental working. As an example, we are working closely with DSIT to convene the Digital and Computing Skills Education Taskforce, aiming to increase the number of individuals taking digital and computing qualifications and attracting people into digital jobs. We have invested over £100 million in the National Centre for Computing Education, to improve teaching of and participation in computer science GCSE and A-level.
I recognise very much, in my noble friend Lady Fairhead’s comments about AI, the pace of change and the difficulty in government to stay ahead of the curve. I hope the House agrees that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given great leadership in the area of ethical AI and safety in AI. My colleagues in the department are also making great progress, and I look forward to being able to update the House on some of those activities in due course.
The third area of focus is on life sciences. The UK life sciences industry is one of the largest in the world, with the potential to create up to 133,000 new roles in 2030. Through the Office for Life Sciences, my department is working with employers and industry bodies to identify and address skills challenges.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, talked about the importance of the creative industries. This is one of the fastest growing sectors of the UK economy, and we have clearly set out the Government’s ambition—shared with industry—to support a million new jobs through education and skills objectives, in our creative industries sector vision. We have developed 57 creative and design occupational standards and we have more flexible training models to support apprenticeships in the creative industries, where short-term contracts or other non-standard employment models are the norm.
Finally, our fifth area of strategic focus is on advanced manufacturing. Manufacturing provides 2.6 million jobs in the economy—7% of total employment—but there are currently 70,000 vacancies. Our plan sets out our ambition to establish an advanced manufacturing skills forum with the National Manufacturing Skills Taskforce. Again, this is supported by skills bootcamps and T-levels, to create a pipeline of skilled workers.
I turn to our qualification reform, which was a subject of interest for my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Lingfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. As the House knows from our debates on this subject during the passage of the skills Bill, we aim to fund only qualifications that are of the highest quality and lead to good progression outcomes. T-levels are delivering fantastic results for those 16 to 19 year-olds across the country. I encourage my noble friend Lord Lingfield to perhaps meet some of those students with me, because they are delighted by their courses. Over 30,000 young people have now enrolled on a T-level since their launch four years ago, with roughly 16,000 enrolling in the last year.
My noble friend Lord Willetts asked some very specific questions about the precise number of qualifications that will have funding removed and the number of students taking them. I will cover some of those points now, but I will also write to him and put a copy of my letter in the Library, because this is a slightly complex area. We have not yet finished all our decision-making on the funding of qualifications, but we have published the number of courses and enrolments, rather than students, where either funding is being removed or we are considering it, and I will put the links to that information in my letter.
As the House knows, we are removing public funding from qualifications in phases. The first phase was for 5,500 qualifications, which had either no or very low enrolments. The second phase is for the removal of funding from qualifications that overlap with T-levels. The final phase relates to our approval process through which alternative academic qualifications must go to be funded from September 2025.
On the second phase—the removal of funding from qualifications that overlap with T-levels—waves 1 and 2 covered about 130 qualifications and about 39,000 enrolments. Within that, there were 10 qualifications that had more than 1,000 enrolments. Wave 3 covered 85 qualifications with 17,000 enrolments, and there were five qualifications with more than 1,000 enrolments. Wave 4 is expected to cover around 70 qualifications and 32,000 enrolments, of which nine qualifications had more than 1,000 enrolments. I raise the point about the relatively small number of qualifications with large numbers of enrolments because my noble friend Lord Lingfield talked about T-levels being too complicated, but the existing system is extremely complicated. We want to bring simplicity and clarity to the quality of the qualifications that young people are undertaking.
The final reason why I would like to write to my noble friend, rather than try to explain this in any more detail at the Dispatch Box, is that T-levels are very large courses covering a variety of occupational specialisms and lasting two years. The qualifications being defunded are of different sizes; some can be very small, and one person could take several enrolments. The enrolment data for older-style qualifications cannot be directly compared with T-levels, which are much larger. I assure my noble friend and the House that students will continue to have a range of options available to them at level 3, in addition to A-levels and T-levels, including new technical occupational qualifications and alternative academic qualifications, helping to ensure that all students have a range of options. Each one of those will have employer standards and occupational standards at its heart.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for the full answer she has already given. Can she give her assurance that the measure of enrolments, which I understand is not the same as the number of students, going back to the baseline that I referred to, will be in her letter to me?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It will.
I turn to the wider points raised about the curriculum by my noble friends Lady Sater and Lord Effingham, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. To critics of the curriculum, I say as a starting point that we work very closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which gives a robust, highly respected and independent evidence base about all the reforms that we have undertaken, so there is nothing ideological in what we are doing in our schools. It is based on the best available evidence, including randomised control trials and other similarly robust approaches.
I absolutely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that it is a bit artificial to separate knowledge and skills; it is the combination of the two that is powerful. I agree with my noble friend Lady Sater about the importance of confidence and agility, but we believe those are based in a knowledge-rich curriculum that fosters competence and mastery in a subject. I may have to include my response about storming the barricades with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in my letter. All I can say at this point is that it sounds an interesting option.
In relation to my noble friend Lord Effingham’s question regarding prohibition of phones, if additional evidence emerges that they are a problem—we know that most schools already prohibit phones in some way—we will seek to make our guidance statutory. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, emphasised the importance of careers. I remind the House that in the financial year 2024-25 we are investing more than £90 million in high-quality careers provision for all.
I am running out of time. My last point is to acknowledge the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley that the Government cannot make a success of these skills reforms on their own. Employers must also do more to support the development of workforce skills. We have seen employer investment in training fall by 7.8% in real terms between 2017 and 2022. As my noble friend said, we must move away from reliance on migration to fill skills gaps and towards investment in the skills of our domestic workforce.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
At the beginning of her speech, the Minister said—I have not heard a Minister say it before—that the forecast of the skills gap in 2030 is hundreds of millions, if not billions. It is absolutely extraordinary, and our education system as presently constituted cannot possibly meet it. I gave her forewarning of this in my speech: will she consider the proposal that has been put to her to insert into ordinary schools in the UK a technical sleeve, known as a UTC sleeve? We have 10 schools that want to do it and applications have been made to her, but there has been no reaction at all from the Department for Education. When will she be in a position to give approval to this? Will it be before the next election?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The skills gap numbers that I cited were in relation to global skills gaps. The point I was making was that this is not a uniquely UK problem in relation to skills; it is a global problem. As the noble Lord knows, his correspondence with the department is the responsibility of another Minister. I understand that it is under consideration.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have found this a thoroughly absorbing, enlightening and encouraging debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, from so many different perspectives. I particularly look forward to hearing more in the future from the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Hale and Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, following their splendid maiden speeches. I am also grateful to the Minister. I very much echo the tribute by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to her knowledge and commitment to this area, and thank her for her characteristically comprehensive response to such a broad debate. I am certainly not going to try to summarise in any sense, but I very much look forward to reading it in Hansard. It has very much confirmed to me the importance of skills as an issue, the breadth of areas it covers and the scale of the challenges we need to address. It is much too broad for a single debate, so I hope we will have other opportunities to discuss it.
My noble friend Lord Clancarty spotted the fact that I had omitted “education” from the Motion. That was because I wanted to focus in particular on the skills aspect. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, commented that skills are not taken seriously enough. It seems that for too long education has been a powerful horse pulling a rather ramshackle skills carriage, when what we need is for them to work in harness with other horses: employers, other departments, parents—all the groups we have talked about—and they should be pulling a first-class, golden carriage accommodating both education and skills. So I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talk about a vision for skills, which perhaps is the design for that golden carriage that we need. This is an issue that I will certainly wish to push further, but I reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords for a really inspiring morning.
Inadmissible Asylum Seekers
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of people who have entered the United Kingdom without prior permission since 7 March 2023 and so have been deemed inadmissible to the asylum system, and what plans they have to deal with them.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I must first draw attention to my interest in the RAMP organisation, which supports me, which is in the register.
My purpose in tabling this topical question debate is to establish facts about the Government’s policy in respect of the 73,000 asylum applications, covering roughly 90,000 people, that have been made since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill on 7 March 2023. The Minister will know very well that we on these Benches do not support the Government’s policy on removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda or provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. However, he will be very pleased to know that I do not intend to re-rehearse those arguments today.
Today I am seeking answers from the Minister to confirm how the Government intend their policy to be applied. This matters to the taxpayer, to the 90,000 people caught up in it and to the many organisations that are seeking to support them. I also seek to pursue some of the questions to which the Public Accounts Committee in the other House sought answers in its evidence session of 5 April 2024.
Those individuals who arrived in the UK on a visa, for example as a student, and then later claimed asylum, for reasons such as civil war breaking out in their own country, would have their asylum claim considered in the UK. However, as there is no legal route by which to enter the UK to claim asylum, once the Illegal Migration Act is fully in force most of the asylum applications made since 7 March 2023 will be deemed inadmissible. This means they will have lodged an asylum application but, due to their method of travel to the UK, their cases will have been placed on hold pending a third country accepting their removal—namely, Rwanda. Their asylum claim is not admitted into the UK asylum system, so the substance of their claim would never be assessed in the UK. They are effectively in indefinite limbo until they can be sent to a safe third country.
In the Permanent Secretary’s letter of 25 April to the chairs of the Public Accounts and Home Affairs Committees in the other House, he confirmed that the exact number of these asylum applications deemed to be inadmissible would
“only be confirmed once the full triage”
of these arrivals had been completed. So my first question is: what do the Government predict will be the number of inadmissible cases from 7 March 2023 to the present, based on their current modelling?
We have two cohorts of people who are in limbo within this 73,000. The first is the Illegal Migration Bill cohort, who arrived between 7 March 2023 and 19 July 2023. These amount to 21,313 applications as of 14 April this year. These individuals are not subject to the duty to remove, but they are subject to the ban on leave to enter or remain, on settlement and on citizenship. Whether they are inadmissible into the asylum system is a decision to be made by the caseworker, following guidance. What happens after that is what I am trying to establish. At the moment, the Government appear to be doing their best to pretend that these people do not exist—maybe they are hoping that they can leave it for the next Government to sort out.
In the Commons Public Accounts Committee evidence hearing of 15 April, the director general of the customer services group at the Home Office stated that this March to July 2023 cohort would start to be processed this month. Has that practice of processing commenced? Secondly, when would the Minister expect the processing of the asylum applications of the March 2023 to July 2023 cohort to be completed? Thirdly, have the 2,500 caseworkers, previously recruited to clear the legacy backlog, been retained? If so, are they being used to clear this backlog?
We have a bizarre situation here, in that individuals can be admitted into the UK asylum system if they are deemed not to have arrived irregularly. However, despite the ban on granting leave having come into force last July, when the Act received Royal Assent, there has been no guidance since then on how the ban is being applied to them. How is the ban on leave being applied? When will guidance be published about how leave can be granted to this cohort and what rights and entitlements should be attached to that leave?
The second limbo cohort within this 73,000 is what I call the Illegal Migration Act cohort, those who have claimed asylum having arrived from 20 July 2023 to the present day. As of 14 April, there were 51,926 cases, representing around 64,000 people. Of course, this figure is growing each day as more people arrive. It might be wise to remember that, despite the Government’s focus on small boats, small boat arrivals accounted for only 37% of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2023.
Once Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act are commenced, asylum claims meeting the criteria will be automatically deemed inadmissible, with the duty to remove to a third country. I would like an answer to the question: what is the Government’s plan for these people? This is a matter of capacity, from both the Rwandan side and our own.
Although the Government insists the Rwanda scheme is uncapped, the reality is that only a small proportion of these limbo cohorts will ever be removed there. The Rwandan Government spokesperson said last weekend that Rwanda could relocate “thousands” over the course of the five-year partnership. There is no indication from Rwanda that this amounts to tens of thousands in the first year.
The Government intend to detain people prior to their removal to Rwanda. Currently there are about 2,200 detention spaces in the UK. Given that there are immigration detainees not related to this Rwanda policy already occupying detention spaces, what detention capacity is available for those being removed to Rwanda? Are there plans in place to create more detention spaces?
Current evidence suggests that the majority of these 90,000 people will remain indefinitely in limbo. They cannot have their asylum claims processed in the UK and they cannot be removed to a safe third country—with some few exceptions with which I agree, particularly in relation to Albania and India.
Without permission to work, they will have to rely indefinitely on asylum support, and there is a huge risk that many will be exploited in the black market. This is what closing down the asylum system looks like. Have the Government made an assessment of the impact of this policy on the numbers of people entering the black economy and very likely being exploited? This is not good for the individuals concerned, our communities or the taxpayer. The Government need a plan, and we need to understand what it is. They cannot simply pretend that this group of people do not exist. Amid the numbers, the data and policy detail, it is essential that we remember the human cost of this policy failure—people’s lives held in suspension. What assessment has been made about the long-term impact of this period of limbo on individuals and communities?
I will turn to money. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted in its last report the increasing amount of aid spent on asylum seekers and refugees from the aid budget—28% in total. In the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Office director-general for migration and borders was asked if that money could continue to be used, and he said it was an issue under review with the Treasury regarding the ODA rules and applicability, because the asylum seeker classification is the one that permits ODA funding for their first year in a country’s asylum system. Can the Minister tell us if ODA money can be used to support this growing cohort of in-limbo asylum seekers? I hope that he can provide answers, which I am seeking on behalf of not just the tens of thousands of people in this position and the organisations that support them, but the taxpayer who will have to fund it.
We need transparency around what the Government’s policies are. These are not simply operational matters; they are policy issues for which the Government has responsibility. Apart from the huge cost of the scheme, people need to understand what will happen to them. I remind the House that these people are illegal only because the Government have deemed them so; they are men, women and children who have sought protection in the UK, yet the Government have refused to consider their cases. The top nationalities of these people are Afghan, Iranian, Eritrean and Sudanese, which previously had grant rates of 98% to 99% for entry into this country. They are refugees. The current policy will hold these people in a government-imposed limbo, in a state of purgatory. It is not a good place; it denies hope and devalues the futures of so many who have fled for their lives.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for obtaining this debate on a very important area that, although it has, sadly, become very party political, is somewhere that we need to get real and use everyone’s creative thinking to try to find solutions. This is affecting virtually every country, to a greater or lesser degree, in Europe; it is not going to go away; we are dealing with the lives of vulnerable people; and I hope we can try to think together about the way forward. I have a certain reticence to speak as this is an area where some of the legislation is extremely complex, and I hope I will bring some light rather than more confusion to it.
The passing of the Illegal Migration Act, alongside the Rwanda plan, appears to have created much more confusion and overlapping statuses for asylum seekers. We now have asylum seekers whose applications were made before 28 June 2022 and the Nationality and Borders Act, those whose applications were made from 28 June 2022 to 6 March 2023, the group between 7 March to 19 July, and then those who applied after 20 July 2023. As I understand it, all are affected by slightly different legislation.
This is not my area of expertise, but it seems clear to me—this echoes the concerns certainly of many on these Benches, but I think throughout the House—that a number of applications for asylum will be deemed permanently inadmissible, yet the asylum seekers will remain in the UK as they cannot be removed either back to their own country or to Rwanda, simply because there are not enough spaces. This has already been pointed out with some detailed figures; as I understand, there are nothing like enough places for the numbers who need to be removed. They are stuck here. I thought that the word that the noble Lord, Lord German, used was very significant: they are in a state of limbo, never to be granted leave to remain. This cannot be a sustainable situation not only for their sake, which is the biggest issue, but because of the cost to the taxpayer, as thousands of asylum seekers will remain indefinitely dependent on Home Office accommodation and some sort of support.
There are also questions about the choices left for those trapped in this situation and the fact that thousands of those intended for deportation to Rwanda cannot, at the moment, be located. It indicates that they may be driven underground, where they are at risk of exploitation and destitution.
I would like to raise the particular point not only that hundreds of unaccompanied children housed in Home Office hotels and hostels went missing last year—we do not know whether they have been kidnapped or, as some people say, recruited by criminal gangs—but that recent reports indicate that over 350 children were held in UK detention facilities in France between January 2022 and October 2023. Many of these children would have been left extremely traumatised, yet it appears that the Home Office held no information on the number of officers trained in safeguarding and modern slavery at these facilities. We have a duty of care to these children, who are extremely vulnerable, and these reports are indeed alarming.
I will also take this opportunity to ask the Minister how many asylum-seeking children in the UK are unaccounted for and what the Government are doing about it. What are we doing to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, arriving now and in the future, are properly cared for and protected? We urgently need robust safeguards and clarity on where responsibility for these children lies.
I know that, many times during the passage of the Rwanda Bill 2024 in this House, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke passionately for the case to protect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I wish simply to press on the Minister and the Government the importance of protecting these vulnerable children from danger or exploitation while they are here, however long they are here for, regardless of their immigration status.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord German, on securing this timely debate. The asylum issue has been high on the national political agenda for a considerable period but, until recently, it was not a particularly prominent subject of debate or discussion in Northern Ireland. In common with the rest of the United Kingdom, there were frustrations with some hotels being unavailable to holidaymakers and others because they were being used to accommodate asylum seekers. Other than that, it was seen as an issue more relevant to Great Britain.
That has changed dramatically over the past two weeks. In one of his first acts, the new Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris asked his Justice Secretary to bring forward legislation to enable asylum seekers entering the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland to be sent back to the United Kingdom. It is the Irish Government’s view that 80% of recent asylum seekers arriving in the Republic have come across the Irish land border. The reason, according to the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, is the deterrent effect of the United Kingdom Government’s Rwanda Act, with which your Lordships are all too familiar. These comments were seized on by our own Prime Minister as something akin to a cause for celebration. Other senior members of His Majesty’s Government have expressed similar views.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have an open border on the island of Ireland. The common travel area is an arrangement which began in 1922 and includes a basic right for United Kingdom and Irish citizens to travel freely between the two countries. While the major political parties in both jurisdictions have supported the open border concept, Sinn Féin/IRA had always been particularly adamant that everyone should be able to cross back and forth from north to south free of impediment.
However, the developments I have described have provoked something of a rethink from Sinn Féin supporters. In an opinion poll published last weekend in the Sunday Independent, 52% of Sinn Féin supporters said they now want checkpoints on the border to limit the number of asylum seekers arriving from Northern Ireland. That number is even higher than the 50% of respondents in the Republic of Ireland who said they hold the same view. According to a recent opinion poll, 82% of people in the Republic of Ireland also want immigrants who have travelled through Northern Ireland to be deported back to the United Kingdom.
The Irish Government’s initial response to this developing situation was to pledge to send 100 Gardai officers to police the border—the only land border between the United Kingdom and a member state of the EU. However, they now appear to have backed away from this. In the meantime, Rishi Sunak has made clear that His Majesty’s Government refuse to take back any refugees from the Republic of Ireland unless France agrees to take back refugees who crossed the English Channel to get to the United Kingdom in the first place. Put simply, the situation is nothing short of a mess.
Your Lordships will most probably be aware that a general election must take place in the Republic of Ireland no later than March 2025. The hardening of public opinion on immigration and asylum south of the border is quickly being reflected in changing policy stances taken by the political parties fighting for votes in the Republic of Ireland. It has served as a reminder that Sinn Féin’s capacity for hypocrisy and political opportunism knows no bounds. The party of open borders and unbridled immigration is undergoing a conversion.
But they are not alone in the hypocrisy stakes. One cannot but recall the recently departed Irish Prime Minster Leo Varadkar travelling to Brussels to brandish a photograph of a bombed customs post and insist that any border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was unthinkable. No doubt he was still intending to stand for re-election before embarking on that grossly irresponsible and offensive stunt.
One can only hope that, with the UK general election only months away, Rishi Sunak’s position on the border issue is not motivated by the shallow quest for votes in Great Britain over the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked several questions which need answering; I simply ask one more. What are His Majesty’s Government intending to do—in partnership with the Irish Government—to remedy this situation?
There is a time and place for politics; all of us in this House understand that. However, history tells us that playing politics with the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is generally helpful to no one in the long run. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, Britain has a history of giving asylum to many political leaders, human rights workers and students, in some times, from various countries. Two that come to mind are Pakistan and Bangladesh, from which political leaders have sought political asylum during military rule in those countries or, sometimes even if the military has not ruled directly, when the political space for politicians has been squeezed and many of them had to flee. Britain has been home to many of them during their asylum.
My question is very brief: what will happen to any political leaders or human rights activists from such countries who come to the UK? Will their applications be sorted here, or will they also need to be sent to Rwanda?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, both my noble friends have asked some questions. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Hussain’s question is a new one, but my noble friend Lord German certainly asked questions to which many organisations and many citizens want to know the answer.
The Refugee Council has sent us its estimates. No doubt the Minister has seen these, and I hope he will be able to answer on them, directly or indirectly, because if the Government will not say and will not give us the answer then what has happened to accountability, and if they cannot say then what does that tell us about how much they are in control? Last week, I asked some questions about numbers and the Minister regarded them as operational matters that he was not able to answer. I hope he will be able to be more forthcoming today.
I wanted to speak about housing, but I realised that time would be against me. I think all noble Lords will understand that, for everyone, housing is essential for stability and a basis from which exploitation and a whole range of abuses, including trafficking, can be avoided. If one does not have it, one is in real trouble.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights six or seven years ago when it considered detention in various circumstances, one of which was immigration detention. There are plenty of reports on the damage that detention can do. The committee was actually very shocked at the evidence it heard. The Government may say that one aspect of detention has been solved, which is the lack—or rather loss—of hope. They may say that is now irrelevant because detainees know they will be removed to Rwanda. I would challenge that.
I would also challenge how people are currently being detained, according to widespread reporting. This is not new, but people are being picked up from reporting centres and taken into detention without belongings, clothes, medication, phones or the means of contacting anyone who can help or needs to know. Neither the treatment nor the occasion is new, but if an asylum seeker is complying with the terms of their bail conditions, goes to report and behaves entirely properly then why are they received and dealt with in that way? Why the brutality and dehumanisation?
Of course, people are becoming more aware of what might happen without warning. I understand that they are being advised to pack a bag now, with contact details of lawyers and support organisations, and leave it with friends so that somebody can access it. But we also know that people are already slipping away and going underground.
I also want to ask about the Safety of Rwanda caseworker guidance, version 1.0. The legislation requires “compelling evidence”. The guidance has a section on this that is introduced by saying that it
“explains the meaning … for the purposes of considering claims that Rwanda is not a safe country for the claimant in question”.
How does this differ from the guidance from which the Home Office, and advisers and experts, have been and are working when the issue is whether a country other than Rwanda is a safe third country?
It is important to be clear what is required for evidence to be “compelling”. I thought I understood that when we were debating the Bill, but looking at the guidance, I am not sure I do. It looks to me as if the previous, or existing, tests are those required to be met. The references are—I suppose inevitably—to cases that precede this April. The term “compelling” is repeated and repeated, but that does not necessarily help. I am very much a lay person, but it did not seem to me in the past that the Home Office was satisfied with evidence provided by an applicant for asylum when it was not compelling.
I have been asked by a psychologist—I should declare that they are a personal contact—who has made assessments of asylum seekers and acted as an expert witness to the court, about my questions and whether I can pursue them, which chimed with my own reading. It is important, of course, that experts and advisers are clear, as well as the Home Office, because “compelling” must mean something. The guidance refers to
“a credible report from a suitably qualified independent expert, based on an adequate assessment”.
Of course, but is that a particular expertise that is different from previous expertise? The guidance also states that
“where the assertion is of a type for which strong, objective evidence ought to be available, such as the existence of a medical condition or a history of engagement in political activism, the threshold is unlikely to be met in the absence of strong, objective evidence in support of the claimant’s own account”.
Evidence of political activism is likely to be available—certainly in documentary form in the applicant’s coat pocket. It is exactly the sort of thing that it would be unsafe to travel with. As regards medical conditions, does this mean evidence recorded prior to the claim? Is it something new? Further assistance would be very helpful.
The guidance states that the impact of the threat of removal to Rwanda must be discounted. Is this rhetorical? Is it possible for an individual to be assessed without taking account of the whole situation, including removal from all his social, religious and support networks? My noble friend Lord German has raised some very pertinent questions about limbo-land, or purgatory. One thing is for sure: limbo-land is not a safe country.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord German, for setting up this important debate; I agree with most of what he said. I also welcome the Minister to his place; how glad I am to see him still here. Only he and one or two others are left defending the policy to deal with this problem. His former boss was on the television just recently, calling out the plan and saying that it would not work. His former colleague, Robert Jenrick, was also calling it out, saying it would not work. Presumably, these are all colleagues he worked closely with to ensure that the plan was well set. There are also some behind him saying that the policy is not tough enough and will not work, and some saying it is too tough. We also have the now-Labour MP for Dover joining in with the criticism of the plan.
So desperate are the Government to get any flights off the ground that they paid a volunteer £3,000 to leave. The British taxpayer will now be paying for their board and lodging in Rwanda for the next five years. Did the Minister sign that off, or can he explain who in the Home Office did? As we are talking about numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord German, says, that means that that part of the plan stands at one. Are the Government currently planning to increase that? Will we see any more volunteers recruited to go to Rwanda? What is the Government’s target?
I will also use the Government’s figures for the numbers of people. Where possible I have tried to use Home Office figures. The numbers show that 1,123 people have arrived on small boats in the last week—some deterrent. How can the Minister tell us that this is working? Of those arrivals, 711 arrived on 1 May, which is more than twice the number—300—that the Government’s Rwanda scheme will take, at a cost of half a billion pounds. Can he explain how that is value for money, at £2 million per person?
Will the Minister confirm that there have been 8,790 arrivals so far this year? According to the Government, that is a 34% increase on last year, and 13% higher than in 2022. Can he explain how the deterrent is working?
So nervous are the Government, and so worried about the ineffectiveness of their own policy, we learned today that they have announced that they will stop publishing the numbers on preventing crossings as a result of collaboration with the French. Can the Minister explain why?
As the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out very effectively, the current backlog since the Illegal Migration Act became law is 52,000, according to government figures. The overall backlog, according to the right reverend Prelate, is some 90,000. We have a huge number of asylum seekers in the current system who do not have a clue what will happen to them and no idea how the Government’s plan will work. The vast majority are either lost, or in asylum accommodation or hotels. Can the Minister tell us exactly how many of those 52,000 people the Government are able to locate? On the larger figure of 90,000, can he confirm that the Government know where all those people are?
Can the Minister tell us how many asylum seekers the Government are currently planning to send to Rwanda? What is the actual figure? How many of these are currently detained? How many flights are planned, and when can we expect planes to take off? The numbers are dire, as I and other noble Lords have said.
The Government’s plans to deal with the situation are in disarray. Some say, including us, that the plans are not working and will not work, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. As I have said to the Government in this Chamber many times, all of us want to stop the boats: we just fundamentally disagree on how to do it. There is also considerable confusion, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate and, for different reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. There is complete confusion about what the Government’s policy is. I say to the Minister that there is an opportunity today to clarify the numbers and to say what will take place, which parts of the policy are working and what the Government are going to do.
As we have said time and again, of course we need to boost the UK’s border security. We will do that with a new cross-border police unit to smash the smuggler gangs, and work with enforcement agencies across Europe to go after the gangs upstream and stop boats arriving at the French coast in the first place. Above all, we will fix the chaos in the asylum system, clear the costly backlog, end hotel use, save the taxpayer billions of pounds and introduce a new unit to swiftly remove thousands more people with no right to be here.
If the system is not in chaos, can the Minister define for the Chamber what chaos is? What most of us see is asylum seekers coming to this country, none of them being detained, many being lost and the Government having no idea what to do with many of them. The Government keep going on about Rwanda, saying that that will sort this out because it will act as a deterrent, yet the figures show that the complete opposite is happening.
Finally, can the Minister explain to noble Lords from all sides, and Members in the other place, why the Government are obsessed with Rwanda, when actually what would work is a basically competent policy that deals with the issue in front of us, rather than the pursuit of Rwanda, which seems to be the end goal that the Government have for everything?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As noble Lords are aware, the UK has a long and proud tradition of providing safe haven to those who genuinely need our protection, and we remain committed to providing such protection, in accordance with our international obligations.
The matter of the Government’s proposed approach to addressing the cohort of individuals who have entered the United Kingdom since 7 March 2023 is therefore an important one. It may be helpful if I set out, in general terms, the Government’s approach and recent successes in clearing the asylum legacy backlog, give a brief update on the Government’s aims for deciding the asylum claims which have been made since 7 March and clarify how inadmissibility provisions will be applied. Before I do that, again none of the speakers addressed the simple question of why people have to claim asylum in the first safe country. It seems to be forgotten repeatedly and often that these arrivals in this country have all left a safe third country. It is a long-standing principle that those in need of genuine protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity, in the first safe country they reach, and this is the fastest route to safety.
I remind the House of the progress the Home Office made in 2023 in clearing asylum legacy backlog. As noble Lords will recall, the legacy backlog comprised 92,601 asylum claims lodged before 28 June 2022, when provisions within the Nationality and Borders Act came into force. The Prime Minister committed on 13 December 2022 to clear this backlog by the end of 2023. The Prime Minister’s commitment to clear the backlog was delivered at the end of the year and, in total, 112,000 asylum cases were processed in 2023. Increased efficiency and capacity saw the Home Office not just clear the backlog but exceed it by also processing over 25,000 asylum claims lodged on or after 28 June 2022. To achieve the success of 2023, the Government enhanced processing and deployed an additional 1,200 caseworkers, thus meeting the target to double the number of asylum caseworkers and increasing productivity.
As of 14 April 2024, there were 2,545 full-time equivalent decision-makers in post, answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord German. That is nearly double the number of asylum caseworkers in April 2023. In addition, the streamlined asylum process was developed as part of the legacy backlog clearance strategy for adults. It centred around accelerating the processing of manifestly well-founded asylum claims from legacy claimants of certain nationalities, such as those from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Yemen and, more recently, Sudan. This involved the use of an asylum questionnaire provided to claimants allowing them to explain why they required protection status in the UK. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees welcomed the introduction of the streamlined asylum process, publicly stating
“Removing the requirement for substantive interviews through the use of a questionnaire for asylum seekers from certain countries with very high grant rates should meaningfully reduce the current backlog of cases awaiting adjudication. Simultaneously, the procedure should uphold appropriate safeguards by maintaining individual interviews before any negative decisions are made”.
Since April 2023, children’s claims from high grant rate nationals of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam have also been considered through the streamlined asylum process. It remains a key priority to consider claims as efficiently as possible, to clear the asylum backlog and to reduce the number of people on asylum support, in turn reducing the burden on taxpayers. By our speeding up decision-making, asylum seekers are given the certainty they need to plan for their future. In 2024, flow claims—those lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023, as well as asylum claims from those who arrived before 7 March 2023—are being prioritised now that the legacy claims have been cleared.
The Home Office has continued to build on existing processes and systems in its approach to tackling this latest cohort of claims. For example, the streamlined asylum process was extended to include eligible claimants from 28 June 2022 to 6 March 2023. During July 2023, the streamlined asylum process for children’s claims was also rolled out to claims from the same nationalities lodged from 28 June 2022 until 6 March 2023. We have recently redesigned the statement of evidence form for children, making the process quicker and more streamlined. The process for accompanied and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children enables cases to be progressed more quickly. The latest provisional data shows that, as of 14 April 2024, there were 7,358 outstanding claims made on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023. This demonstrates that we are making good progress on clearing the remaining claims. That means that the Government have made excellent recent progress in clearing both the legacy and, shortly, the flow backlog of asylum claims. The Government remain committed to their objective of deterring illegal migration to the UK and stopping the boats.
The Government are clear that those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, and not put their lives at risk by making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK. Illegal migration from safe countries undermines our efforts to help those most in need. Controlled resettlement, via safe and legal routes, is the best way to protect such people and disrupt the organised crime groups that exploit migrants and refugees.
Lord German (LD)
I wonder if I could ask about those who come directly to this country and those who pass through other countries? Given that nearly two-thirds of all people who are here irregularly do not come in small boats, what percentage have come directly? For example, those who overstay visas have not come via a third country but have arrived directly. I understand that the Government do not know how to split up that two-thirds, but is there any data on the numbers arriving here directly in that 60-odd percent?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that I am coming to a more detailed set of number shortly, if he will bear with me. The safe third country inadmissibility policy is a longstanding process, intended to encourage individuals to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is an established part of international asylum procedures, applied across the EU and explicitly provided for in UK law, including in the strengthened provisions introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
With the exception of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, those who choose to travel from a safe third country such as France, and then claim asylum in the UK may find their claim treated as inadmissible to the asylum process. That means that the UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal to a safe country.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate about facilities in France, anyone detained at the border is held for the shortest time possible. We prioritise processing children and vulnerable people as quickly as possible. Individuals in detention are held in safe and decent conditions. There are established procedures in place in every facility to monitor people’s welfare and safeguarding needs. These facilities are subject to inspection by HMG’s Inspector of Prisons, accompanied by their French counterpart, to ensure that they are of the highest standards.
It is in this context that current removals to Rwanda may apply. Any individual who is otherwise suitable for an inadmissibility decision and who has arrived in the UK through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary methods since 1 January 2022 may be considered for relocation to Rwanda, under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Individuals will only ever be removed to a third country when that country is safe and removal is appropriate, according to the individual’s particular circumstances.
Once commenced, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act will further strengthen our approach to inadmissibility. When a person meets the four conditions under Section 2 of the Act, they will be subject to the duty to remove. Any asylum or human rights claims made against the person’s country of origin will be declared inadmissible. The UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal either to their home country—if it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
As of 14 April 2024, there were 21,313 outstanding claims made between 7 March and 19 July 2023. In addition, there were 51,925 outstanding claims made on or after 20 July 2023. I would caution that this data is provisional. It is taken from live operational databases and has not been cleansed to remove duplicates. The finalised figures as at the end of March 2024 will be published later this month.
The right reverend Prelate also asked me about the numbers of missing children. There are 111, they are all male and 98 have reached the age of 18. There are 13 left who are under the age of 18.
These provisions will apply to both adults and children. The duty to remove does not require the Secretary of State to make removal arrangements for unaccompanied children, but there is a power to remove unaccompanied children in limited circumstances, such as family reunion with a parent. However, any asylum or human rights claim made against the child’s country or origin will be declared inadmissible. Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK.
Once commenced, these inadmissibility provisions will apply to those who are subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act, and who entered or arrived illegally on or after 20 July 2023. As all asylum claims are generally worked in date order, the next cohort of asylum claims that are due to be progressed are those made by individuals who arrived in the UK after 7 March 2023. Further information will be published on our plans to decide these cases in the coming weeks. I am afraid there is no more I can say at this point.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I appreciate that the time allocated for the Minister is passing but, since several noble Lords took far less time than their allocation, I am sure the House will be sympathetic if he continues.
I think he has finished with the numbers, which he said would answer my noble friend Lord German; I am not sure that they have. On the same subject, the only way to come without crossing the channel would be to fly or to be here already, because we are an island. The report on safe routes published some months ago merely reported on what the safe routes are, without proposals for new safe routes. Can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have in mind so that their conditions can be fulfilled? I also hope he can answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the reporting.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that under the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act, a consultation process took place with local councils and authorities to find out what their local capacities are. I believe that consultation process has concluded, but I do not yet know the outcome. That will presumably inform the debate as to the safe and legal routes that may or may not be made available after we know the numbers.
We are continuously working through cases that could not previously be progressed as they require further investigation. The difficult cases typically relate to asylum seekers presenting as children, where age verification is taking place; those with serious medical issues; or those with suspected past convictions, where checks may reveal criminality that would bar asylum.
To come on to a few of the more specific questions, I can say confidently that detention capacity is sufficient. I cannot comment on other operational aspects around detention, but as of 24 April there were 2,200 people in immigration removal centres, which includes those liable for removal to Rwanda.
In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that any evidence presented by an individual will be considered on its own merits. The information needs to be substantial and reliable and support the claim being made.
In answer to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German, about our ODA spend, that is all reported in line with OECD rules. We do not include support costs for those in detained accommodation, nor for those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible.
Lord German (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but can the Minister answer the question? His officials told the committee in the other House that there is ongoing discussion about whether the continuous use of ODA is possible. Have those discussions with the Treasury reached a conclusion, and is the Minister able to say that it is certainly possible to spend this money now?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. I will see whether I can find it, and I commit to write to the noble Lord if I can.
I turn to other aspects of the various questions I was asked. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, asked about individuals who were previously present in a safe third country and entered the UK by a dangerous and unnecessary method. I am afraid that they are liable to relocate to Rwanda. It is an ongoing operational matter, so I am unable to provide a running commentary on individual numbers or cases.
In answer to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about colleagues, I note that he now has a colleague who says:
“Don’t trust Labour on immigration they really want open borders … The Government wants to close legal loopholes … Labour seems intent on creating them”,
and
“Labour … are not serious about stopping small boats, tackling criminality, protecting people from the smuggling gangs or saving lives in the Channel”.
What on earth did the colleague mean by all that? I think the noble Lord knows.
As I hope I have made clear, the Government recognise the crucial importance of having in place a robust operational plan to deal with individuals who have outstanding asylum claims in the UK. We are getting on with the job; we will have a lot more to say on this subject, and I expect to be questioned on numerous future occasions on this very subject. I have little else to add.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The Minister did not manage to answer the question from my noble friend Lord Rogan about the situation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. I am sure he would appreciate an answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With apologies, I did mean to, but for obvious reasons I cannot comment on the internal policies of another country, and I do not think it would be appropriate to do so in this case.
Integration of Primary and Community Care (Committee Report)
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
That this House takes note of the Report from the Integration of Primary and Community Care Committee Patients at the centre: integrating primary and community care (HL Paper 18).
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, many of your Lordships will know that for a long time I have been concerned with health and social care principally though the experience of carers. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard carers say something like, “What I don’t understand is why it doesn’t all fit together. How come the GP didn’t know that Mum was being discharged from hospital? Why did the community nurse and the social worker not know each other? Why have I got to give Mum’s details over and over again to different people?”
So when I was asked to chair a House of Lords special inquiry into integrating primary and community care, I was delighted. I express my most sincere thanks to the 12 cross-party members of the inquiry, most of whom are speaking today, for their knowledge, skills, commitment and wisdom. Most unusually, we had—for reasons beyond anyone’s control—three changes of clerk during our deliberations, so I acknowledge the ongoing support of Chris Clarke and, most of all, Matthew Burton, who was and is a shining example as our policy analyst. I am most grateful to our special advisor, Professor Gerald Wistow, whose long experience in both the health and social care fields was invaluable. I welcome, too, the other speakers in our debate and am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has chosen this one in which to make his maiden speech.
The inquiry took evidence from 70 witnesses, we had 76 written submissions, and we undertook two visits to projects in areas where integration is definitely benefiting patients. Defining integration is not easy, but we took as our definition something from a government policy paper that had been in use for years before that:
“the planning, commissioning and delivery of co-ordinated, joined up … services to support people to live healthy, independent and dignified lives and which improves outcomes for the population as a whole. Everyone should receive the right care, in the right place, at the right time”.
I guess no one in this Chamber will be surprised that our inquiry found that there is a very long way to go to achieve this, and that patients are constantly being inconvenienced or endangered, or missing improved long-term health, because they are not receiving joined-up care in the right place and at the right time. Poorly co-ordinated care significantly undermines the quality of patient experience in the NHS and can have profound consequences for long-term health.
The inquiry heard of patients suffering vision loss, or facing critical delays in treatment, due to the mishandling or loss of records between services. Patients in care homes frequently endured inconvenient and unnecessary trips to see their GPs or to hospital appointments. Consultants did not talk to each other or consult about patients, resulting in the absurdity of a patient seeing three separate consultants for the three injuries sustained in one fall.
Community nurses were unavailable and rarely in contact with other professionals. Complex care is fragmented across various services, which do not co-ordinate with each other to plan overall patient care and recovery, let alone to take responsibility for the preventive services which we all know are the long-term key to a viable NHS. Social care was not actually within the committee’s remit but witnesses frequently referred to the lack of integration between those two elements as an even more serious problem than the intra-NHS difficulties.
The inquiry identified four key obstacles to integration which could be addressed. I will refer briefly to each of them, with our suggestions for tackling them. The first was structures and organisation. The Health and Care Act 2022 encourages local autonomy and subsidiarity to encourage interservice relationships, but designing a universal policy has proved difficult. The imbalance of power and representation in ICBs, ICPs, local authorities and the voluntary and community sectors limits integration. Of course, it is relatively early days, and almost all our witnesses said that they must be given more time to mature.
We do not propose further reorganisation but suggest that the membership of the governing bodies should be widened and accountability enhanced through better inspection. Health, social care and voluntary sector leaders should work together as equal partners, as they are likely to possess a real understanding of their respective communities. This would encourage integrated policy-making and service provision, as well as a more preventive approach to public health. Importantly, there should be a single accountable officer at place level, specifically charged with working with local leaders.
Our second obstacle was contracts and funding. The NHS allocates an excessive amount of funding to reactive hospital care at the expense of preventive primary and community care. That is a strong statement, but it was not our conclusion: it was the opinion expressed by all four former Health Ministers and Secretaries of State who gave evidence to us. They were from different parties and were Ministers in different circumstances, but they were adamant on that point. Too much money goes to hospitals. Service contracts lack incentive for multidisciplinary care and reform is needed to ensure that this is incentivised.
Co-location encourages better communication and easier access for patients, but the existing GP contract and partnership model hinders this, as does the fragmented funding across different health disciplines. Of course, there is the huge divide between local authority-funded care and that funded by the NHS. The better care fund has made attempts to bridge this gap, but joint funded mechanisms need to be significantly enhanced. The better care fund should cover a larger proportion of relevant NHS and local authority expenditure, and the fund’s statutory responsibilities should be devolved to place-based commissions. This would enable decisions on joint funding to be taken by those with a better knowledge of local needs.
The third obstacle we encountered was data sharing. Single patient records have not been universally adopted, and full implementation faces issues of interoperability and widespread IT inadequacies. For example, we came across people putting the same data into three separate computers because the machines do not talk to each other and the systems are not connected. More frustration was expressed by our witnesses on the inadequacy of connectivity than almost anything else. As well as the technical issues, data sharing is hindered by cultural and perceived legal obstacles. The DHSC should publish guidance that clarifies how data and privacy laws apply to patient data, so that everybody is clear about their responsibilities.
Our fourth obstacle was workforce and training. Staff shortages make integration more difficult; of that, there is no doubt. When you are up to your eyes on the front line, have you time to develop new ideas for integrating? Specialised staff are not trained sufficiently in the work of other disciplines, and there are of course hierarchies of professions and services. Integration needs to be included in all initial clinical training, and clinicians should be introduced to other services by job rotations. Better training for social care workers would enable them to work more effectively with primary and community care workers, and social care must be included in the NHS long-term workforce plan.
Mindful always of the current problems faced by the NHS, we were aware of the shortages of people and resources that undermine integration, however good the intentions of individuals. We emphasise that better integration will reduce the long-term stress on the NHS, as it leads to more holistic and preventive care over time and encourages a problem-solving approach to work that ignores or bypasses artificial professional divisions. Our visits to Coventry and Pimlico provided us with evidence that real integration happens where you cannot see the joins between the professions.
In summary, trusting and constructive working relationships are essential for integration, together with aligned contracts and funding, as well as seamless data sharing. These were the focus of the 16 recommendations that we made to the Government as our inquiry ended. The Government’s response was delayed and when it came, it was very disappointing. In fact, it did not even give the usual “accept” or “reject” response to the individual recommendations, apart from one very lukewarm acceptance. In short, the Government’s response says that everything is under control and all the issues we raised are being addressed.
I will give an example. We found co-location to be extremely beneficial for integration and recommended that the Government should
“investigate different ownership models for GP practices”
and
“their co-location with other community services”.
The Government’s response concedes that co-location can be good but is not required. Although the Government say that NHSE and the DHSC are investigating
“new models of primary care estates”
there is no further information about that, and no timescale is given.
On another of our recommendations—for a single accountable officer—all the Government say in response is that some progress has been made and that a single accountable officer is “one way” of ensuring integration. That is another lukewarm response, which is in direct contradiction to the Government’s previous statements and commitment in the integration White Paper that a single accountable officer must be appointed.
For social care, we make what seem to us to be very sensible, cost-effective suggestions about multidisciplinary teams and joint training, as well as amending the workforce plan to include
“a strategy for increasing the size of the social care workforce”
so that it is sustainable in the future. Again, the Government’s response is immensely disappointing, merely saying that they will “consider” how they will
“support better integration of health and care to create a more flexible, agile workforce”.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the special inquiry was very clear about the purpose of integration: it is not an end in itself, but a means of achieving patient-centred care, reducing inequalities and getting a better balance between community-based care and hospital-based care. Despite endless commitments over many years to the importance of integration, I am sorry to say that the Government’s response to our report is a missed opportunity to show commitment and to bring about important changes, many of which are simple and virtually cost free—I emphasise: they are simple and virtually cost free.
The Government merely fudged their response. They lack any sense of urgency to deal with problems that will only become more urgent as our population ages and lives longer, with more comorbidities. We called our report Patients at the Centre. I am yet to be convinced—although I hope that the Minister may prove me wrong—that the Government are really committed to ensuring that patients are at the centre of primary and community care. I beg to move.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
This was an exceptionally interesting inquiry, which was most skilfully pulled together by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, because the waterfront of the inquiry was very broad. As we were following the Health and Care Act 2022, the Hewitt review and the Fuller report, we started our work quite soon after some initiatives in the health service for integration had just started. In a sense, you do not have to do an inquiry to know that there is a whole lot wrong with the health service.
One might think that everything would be somewhat familiar, but one of the fascinating things about the inquiry was how much was rather new and interesting. The first thing that I comment on was that there was a common understanding in submissions of the problems. We heard from completely different kinds of professionals from across the country who shared again and again the same issues, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has mentioned. In terms of the understanding of what is wrong, we heard Professor Yeandle talk about the fact that integration had not progressed for 25 years; we heard from others that life expectancy had stalled, that people are living too long with sickness, that health services are incredibly underresourced, and that prevention is being ignored. These issues are everywhere, and they are common. At the same time, we had a strong sense from the submissions of a common understanding of the need for change. That was interesting, because again one might think that surely the health service does not wish to change or somehow that these are institutional situations that cannot be changed. But we heard again and again from professionals who knew that they needed to work differently. That was interesting, because if we combine a willingness to change by people with structures in government and organisations that might make that possible, there might be some cause for optimism in this extremely difficult area of public policy.
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned the common understanding of the importance of integration. Everybody knew that integration needed to be done better. Everybody knew that parts of the health service they were working in were performing poorly. We heard from parts of the health service that are performing extremely well. I did not know before being on this inquiry that, if you get sick, you need to be in Greater Manchester. By far the best outcomes in health are in Greater Manchester; it is a great thing to tip off your neighbours. People talk about health tourism in London, but they are missing the best opportunity. The lessons from integration in Manchester and the co-ordination of the local authorities are not easy to transpose on to other parts of the country. We talk about that in our report, because some of these integrated care systems are not aligned well with local authorities; an extremely consistent part of the feedback we had in the inquiry is that you need to align with the geography and the shape of local authority services. We learned that from Manchester and from elsewhere, and it is what we put into our recommendations. The Government said that they are on to it, but they are not doing anything about it. Those will be the frictional areas where the quite large districts that form these integrated care services or boards will break down. We heard again and again that when it gets to county borders or geographic borders—not just whether you are near a teaching hospital but where you get to organisational frontiers, as it were—service breaks down.
That goes on to the issue of the structures that we were talking about. The integrated care system had only just started when we did our inquiry. In a sense, it is almost too soon for us to comment on it. There has been talk about how it should be reviewed after three years, and that will be very important. But we hope that it does in a sense address some of the issue we were trying to review, which was to try and integrate the service much better. It is only just starting out, however, and the districts concerned are very large. Maybe it is too soon to comment on that. We heard very good progress more with the primary care networks and these health centres and health hubs. That was very encouraging, because if the health service was able to provide multidisciplinary teams in a context where you could divide up medical with semi-medical and with not really medical at all-type services, we heard that it would go very well. Professor Everington speaks very well about the differences between biomedicine and social prescribing and providing a broader service. This is a very encouraging area of health, and it would be interesting if that were to be the model.
We also heard from Professor Fuller, but she makes the comment that in her own experience of trying to do the multidisciplinary thing when she is Dr Fuller, when the practice is full she has to work in a cupboard because they do not have the space. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned the importance of providing space where some of these services could take place. That is what Professor Fuller herself has run into.
In conclusion, there is cause for optimism from the report. There are willing people and there are some structures in the health service that are quite new and which might provide some improvement in this area. It has been a pleasure to work on the report.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this debate is very timely as it picks up neatly from our recent debate on the long-term sustainability of the NHS. One of the key takeaways from that debate was the urgent need to move to a more preventive model of care, with investment moved upstream. It will be critical if we are to lower waiting times, improve access and reduce health inequalities.
It is indisputable that funding growth in the health and care system is skewed towards the acute sector. Despite the fact that the majority of daily NHS activity happens in general practice in the community, a large proportion of expenditure on health and social care goes towards acute hospital trusts. Community sector funding has grown at only half the rate of hospital trusts in recent years. The answer to overcrowded hospitals is not simply more hospitals; the health and care system must be radically refocused to put primary and community care at its core.
As we have already heard, a more radical shift to a preventive model of health was one of the key findings of our Select Committee, which was so superbly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—whom I always think of as my noble friend. In short, our committee found that a lack of co-ordination between the everyday primary and community services relied on by people using the NHS was leading to substandard care, missed opportunities for home or community-based treatments, and an undue strain on already overstretched hospitals. Our report argued for a healthcare sector where patients were given the type of care they needed, when, where and how they needed it. That might be access to a GP, a pharmacist, a district nurse or a mental health nurse, along with greater focus on more joined-up preventive care. The evidence is quite clear that investing in primary and community care—which includes mental health—results in lower demand in hospital and emergency care. It really is not rocket science.
A wholesale shift in thinking and culture is required, and it goes a lot wider than funding, as our report said. As the King’s Fund has argued, it involves national measures and targets for the health and care system shifting towards longer-term goals to integrate care and ensure that services can focus on population health rather than being focused on short-term acute measures. This approach is very much backed up by the World Health Organization, which has argued that a primary and community care-focused approach is the most effective and sustainable way of improving the health and well-being of our population.
We have already heard about integrated care systems, which have an important role to play in delivering this change, particularly if they focus on population health, as was the original intention. From the evidence we received, it was clear that local leaders know the challenges for their local communities and the local landscape of primary and community care, and they know it best. Leaders of integrated care systems, place-based partnerships, including health and well-being boards, and primary care networks are best placed to design and deliver joined-up primary and community care.
ICBs should be held to account for their achievements in growing primary and community care services rather than for the performance management of hospital systems, and a stronger primary care voice on ICBs and representation from the voluntary sector would undoubtedly help.
It was clear, as we all know, that the workforce is crucial, not just in primary and community health but in adult social care and the voluntary sector. We need a skilled and well-valued workforce to support people to live independent and healthy lives. Surely the Government should now commit to fully funding and delivering the NHS long-term workforce plan, alongside developing an equivalent plan for social care, where workforce shortages are leading the sector to struggle to support those who need social care, in turn placing additional pressures on primary and community care. Can the Minister say when the Government will heed the calls of so many in this Chamber and in the wider sector to produce a workforce strategy for social care?
Other speakers will no doubt focus on the importance of data sharing for successful joined-up services. We must ensure that patient records can be easily accessed across the health and social care system, including in primary and community care. I found the government response to our recommendations on this issue vague and technocratic. Will the Minister please say exactly what the Government are doing to ensure this happens?
I will pick up on a couple of other specific points from the government response. Recommendation 2 of our report said that elected local government officials should be given the right to chair ICBs where that was the will of the board, underlining the truly joint and equal role of NHS bodies and local authorities in producing a holistic health and social care system. The government response did not make clear whether they were prepared to let this happen. Can the Minister please answer this specific point?
Recommendation 5 was for the Secretary of State to instruct the CQC to develop a specific integration index to compare how well ICSs co-ordinated different services in their areas. The government response does not commit to implementing this. Will the Minster say what the Government’s intentions are in this area?
Finally, recommendations 14 and 16 contained important proposals on training and job rotation. We saw a clear tension between our hospital-centric system of health and care, with increased specialism, and people having increasingly complex health and care needs, which need an integrated, holistic response, hence the need for a different approach to training and job rotation. I would like to see clinical and managerial health leaders strongly encouraged to work in community settings and develop experience across a range of sectors. I found the government response on this unsatisfactory—indeed, there was no response to the point about job rotations. I strongly urge the Government to think again.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare and update my interests as listed in our report, as I now chair the Bevan Commission in Wales. It was a pleasure to be on this committee, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She kept our focus on the topic at hand and worked extremely hard when there were changes of personnel in the clerical staff supporting our committee.
I came to this very important inquiry with experience of having set up hospice services from scratch, where nurses and care assistants needed upskilling and where bringing everybody together, including clerical and reception staff, for open education sessions resulted in them being able to outreach into community services. We established integrated working. Each person knew what the other one could do, and people worked to the top of their game.
As a committee, we were very keen to explore ways to transform the patient experience and decrease demand on health and social care services. We were acutely aware that we should not incur expenditure nor suggest major reorganisation but should reduce the waste from inefficient practices, and that much can be done by different attitudes and approaches.
We were acutely aware that patients want continuity of care. They often feel pushed from pillar to post, not sure whom to contact or even how to contact someone whom they have seen previously. If they get past an answerphone, they find that they are repeating their story time and again, uncertain about who does what and endlessly waiting for the next appointment along a whole chain that feels like a disjointed slow relay. Our suggestion to put health and social care providers together as much as possible, sharing ongoing training, sharing premises and with access to each other’s records, is really at the heart of patients’ experience of integration.
Yet the government response is deeply disappointing. Rather than welcoming our recommendations to provide additional strengths to their plans towards integration—which are outlined in their response—it reads as if the Government are saying, “We are doing it all already”. Yet, time and again, we heard from services about how disjointed they are. We heard about the changes that need to happen to bring health and social care together under one roof in premises fit for purpose, and we heard how disjointed IT systems are. The data held in the different record systems should be viewed as the patient data—it is about them—yet there seemed to be endless blocks to bringing staff and systems together.
We had hoped the Government would welcome our suggestions for patient data to be shared usefully and safely; for the multidisciplinary team to meet together and plan care; for joint education that would upskill social care to remove the risk-averse barriers to interventions that so often result in patients being put in an ambulance from home or a care home and sent to an already overcrowded emergency department for problems such as a blocked catheter or blocked feeding tube to be sorted out, when it could happen so much more easily if staff were upskilled and the patient would not then need to be moved. Many of the bureaucratic blocks could be overcome by honouring contracts that have all staff working together with common aims and contractual changes that reward work done and outcomes, with meaningless bureaucracy stripped out.
We repeatedly heard how patients cannot get the holistic care they need because staff are working in silos, often overseen by risk-averse attitudes from their managers; they do not feel able to do what needs to be done but revert repeatedly to a view of limited job responsibility. By staff working together under the same roof, as we suggested, for evolving general practices and primary care, integrating with local social care providers and the voluntary sector, the culture of care provision could be improved and better monitored to provide far better health outcomes in the longer term, particularly for frail and vulnerable people, for whom stability of place and of staff is especially important.
The Hewitt Review, published in 2023, found that culture, leadership and behaviours matter far more than structures. We wanted to break down the barriers in contracts and in behaviours, but the Government’s response seems to pull back from supporting our recommendations to focus on broad policies that were written recently, rather than address the need to build on them to create the crucial interpersonal relationships that determine good care. We felt disappointment in the Government’s response because it did not build on what they already are putting in place and encourage further integration, and it seemed almost to dismiss some of our suggestions by saying what they were doing but without welcoming our recommendations.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I too felt very privileged to be a member of this committee and want to extend once again my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. She worked tirelessly and used the knowledge and the commitment that she always shows, even on occasion in difficult circumstances with an unusually high turnover of staff working to her. However, I also want to thank the staff because they always worked in a professional way to support the committee effectively. I knew I could rely on the very good other members of the committee to be detailed about the report. It now seems quite a long time ago, but I do want to take therefore a slightly different approach to my speech, as it is meant to be fairly quick.
When I was chairing the Public Services Committee, particularly during Covid, I got to know National Voices, a charity that works essentially with people with long-term conditions, often more than one; and these are the people that an integrated care system should be measured against. I want to go back to what National Voices said when it worked with the patients it was seeking to represent about what they wanted from what we call an integrated system but what it calls a person-centred, co-ordinated care system. We have different definitions, and we like the sort of rhetoric of integration, but we must never forget what the real purpose of it is, because creating care that is co-ordinated around the needs of the individual, rather than the requirements of the health and social care organisations, seems as far away today as it has ever been.
National Voices asked patients what they wanted from the system—and I shall give noble Lords some quotes. They said:
“My care is planned with people who work together to understand me and my carer(s), put me in control, co-ordinate and deliver services to achieve my best outcomes”.
I do not think that that is an outlandish demand. However, it recognises that, while we may be trying to patch together different services and feel that we have succeeded when two organisations say that they are talking to each other, the end product of integration for service users is an outcome whereby they feel more in control of what is going on. The outcome of all this co-ordination means that they and their carers understand what they need to do to keep improving and help make things happen. They said that they wanted to be able to say:
“I was supported to set and achieve my own goals. Taken together, my care and support helped me live the life I want to the best of my ability. I was in control of planning my care and support. I could decide the kind of support I needed and how to receive it”.
I am afraid that we are still a long way away from getting professionals to talk to each other about the whole person they are meant to be helping. Even when we get to that, unless that collective voice of professionals puts the service user in control, we will not really get the outcomes that we need. How do service users want communication to take place? Again, they have some simple wishes. They always want to be
“kept informed about what the next steps would be”.
They want to be sure that “the professionals involved” have “talked to each other”, so that they can see that they have “worked as a team”. They want to be able to say:
“I had one first point of contact. They understood both me and my condition(s). I could go to them with questions at any time. That person helped me to get other services and help, and to put everything together”.
People with different needs know that they need different expertise, and they welcome that expertise—but first they want to know first that the professionals will talk to each other and that someone will put everything together.
These statements—and I could go on—are straightforward and moderate wishes. As I understand it, integration has been in the last three NHS plans. There was even an integration White Paper two years ago yet, last year, with all the new structure that the Government say we must wait to see, NHS England and the DHSC issued contradictory instructions to ICBs, ICSs and trusts. That means that, if they take any notice, they will revert to working in silos. We have to move away from the rhetoric and get on with delivering what patients need, when they need it and in the place they need it.
Lord Jamieson (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire and a member of the Government’s Older People’s Housing Taskforce.
I am deeply honoured and proud to be here, making my maiden speech. I am just a little sad as my mother, who was brought up in occupied Holland by a single parent, is no longer with us, but am pleased that my father, who taught me British constitution and about the House of Lords many years ago, was able to see me introduced. I express my huge thanks to all those who have been so helpful and kind, as I go through this astonishing learning curve—Black Rod, the clerks, the doorkeepers, everyone who works in the House and all your Lordships, who have been hugely welcoming. I express a particular thanks to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Porter of Spalding and Lady Scott of Bybrook, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Redfern, who were all stalwarts in local government before me.
I started life as an engineer in Sheffield, working for British Steel. It is a tragedy in this country that we do not support our engineers enough, and I moved to marketing and banking as I sought to further my career and pay the bills, before getting involved in politics locally, then nationally as chairman of the LGA. Why? Because I, like councillors across the country, just wanted to do something for our communities and get stuff done.
One of the great successes of our society has been increased life expectancy, something I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased with. In 1970, the average male life expectancy was 69, compared to the average age of a Peer today, which is 71. Today, someone retiring can expect to live to 85—a quadrupling of retirement. This is great news, but it comes with costs, most visibly in health and social care. This is exacerbated by other trends: a declining birth rate, along with people starting their careers later, and smaller and more disparate families. Long gone are the days when we had three generations of one family living in the same street or town, supporting one another. There is a breakdown of our traditional communities as we live more insular and transient lives.
There is one statistic that really brings this home: the proportion of the working population employed in health and social care. Currently, it is around one in seven. A recent Dutch report estimated that it would be one in four by 2040 and, without change, would inexorably rise to one in three. This is simply not sustainable; we need to think radically differently if we are to have a sustainable system and ensure that we all enjoy a fulfilling old age. It will require cultural change and a willingness to embrace the politically difficult. I am an optimist, and I believe this can be done, and we will achieve it.
I welcome this report, and the great work of the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and its recommendations, many of which are in line with the work of the Local Government Association. We need to focus on prevention and early intervention—keeping people healthy for longer and out of hospital—and the crucial roles of primary, community and social care, integration, colocation, data sharing and a genuine, joined-up approach.
There are other key issues, such as housing and community. Living in isolated, inappropriate housing does not work. I saw the difference first hand, when my Dutch grandmother moved to an older person’ apartment in her sixties, next to shops, older people’s clubs and transport, and lived there for more than 30 years, needing virtually no additional help until very late on, and had a great life. My English grandmother continued to live in the family home, and had a very different set of outcomes.
We need homes that are suitable for later living, which are part of a community and in the community. There are many life-changing stories from the extra care housing we built in central Bedfordshire, but we need much more of this. Technology offers the opportunity to deliver so much more—AI, diagnostics, personalised medicines, robotics and health monitoring automation. We need to embrace this, but it will mean a radical change to the way in which our public services are delivered.
Finally, on keeping active, Department of Health figures show that only 17% of men and 13% of women over the age of 65 are sufficiently active. This is not just about exercise. Older people have so much they can contribute to society. We need to include them, and they need to include themselves. The retired can and should be the bedrock of our communities. While there is much that government should do, this is a much broader issue. We personally need to think about what it means to get older, and how we plan for it. We should not abrogate this and rely on others. People think about pensions, but not about housing, personal resilience, building their community networks and ensuring their own fitness and quality of diet. This is what I mean by cultural change. If we are to have a sustainable and positive old age, we as a society need to embrace it, recognise our own responsibilities, build communities and accept a changed public service delivery model.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s excellent maiden speech. I have enjoyed our mentoring discussions since he entered the House. Having served a successful term as chairman of the LGA, he noted in his leaving remarks:
“When we can speak with one voice, and with coherent arguments, we have real strength”.
That is crucial to the LGA’s ongoing success, now and into the future.
My noble friend also held the position of leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. His further interests are, in particular, sustainability, improving the health service, and the levelling-up agenda. I know he is committed to all councils playing their part in improving the health of their residents, meeting their housing needs and providing green spaces, which we all agree are vital to improving well-being and tackling social isolation. Yes, my noble friend certainly has much to contribute to the House and we look forward to his future interventions in the coming months. Finally, I am told that his immediate plan on leaving the LGA was to see Bruce Springsteen, but I do not know whether he managed to do it. He says that he did, so there we go.
It is indeed a privilege to speak in this important debate. I thank the Government for their response on this area of primary and community care. I thank our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her excellent chairing throughout our meetings, when we had the opportunity to hear from the many witnesses who gave up their valuable time to attend. I also thank our much-valued secretariat.
The value of collocation and multidisciplinary working in primary and community care is unquestionable, but having said that, care will continue to vary, whether in urban, rural or, indeed, coastal communities. It is valuable to pool additional funding into the BCF where that need is greater. I agree with the importance of all local authorities keeping boundaries under review, with support from all affected partner local authorities.
The overwhelming issue is the major barriers arising from the variability of our IT systems. Much work is needed in all areas to bring those systems together so that they are compatible, and to make real and lasting improvements by promoting interoperability between IT systems. That would not only make it easier for people to track information but allow for quicker decision-making, acknowledge patient privacy and, above all, cut bureaucracy. In essence, data sharing must improve so that we can say that data is just one click away, sweeping away the many fragmented systems that ask patients over and over again to supply the same medical information and engulf them in bureaucracy.
I am pleased to note that the Government have emphasised how important it is to provide additional clarity where necessary to support further integrated working practices. They have also acknowledged that the digital transformation of health and social care is a top priority for the DHSC by enforcing these standards through compliance notices, together with financial penalties, in parallel with an accreditation scheme. The framework accreditation programme will simplify procurement and speed up the adoption of innovation through frameworks, so I welcome NHS England changing the NHS standard contract by requiring trusts and foundation trusts to use only accredited frameworks from April 2024.
I turn to the estate. In essence, in many instances the answer to overcrowded hospitals is not building more hospitals but linking with intertwined primary care and social care services, as infrastructure is simply too important and costly to get wrong. If this does not happen, more expensive hospitals will need to be built to manage acute needs that could have been prevented or better managed.
For most people, being treated at or as close as possible to home is best for their health and is how they want to be cared for, rather than leaving their health needs until they require hospital treatment. That is best, and cost-effective for the NHS, but there is a cycle of invisibility of primary and community health and care services, which are hard to quantify and easy to overlook because less data is available.
Equipping our valued staff with improved training, creating opportunities through built-in shift flexibility for health workers, and giving greater responsibility for good career progression will no doubt improve morale and retention. For those reasons, that will attract and interest new employees, making the NHS a serious, attractive proposition now and for their future progression. As ICSs become more involved in education, training and planning, a plus point must be extending the provision of placements across primary, community and social care, in particular the independent and voluntary sectors, so that students can gain valuable experience of care outside hospitals, thereby introducing them to wider career opportunities.
Delivering primary care with the premises and tools needed to keep patients healthier for longer has to be a win-win: reversing the predicted rise in demand for high-cost, reactive, hospital-based care; supporting people in taking care of their health and well-being; and intervening early, keeping people healthy at home for as long as possible, and enabling them to retain their confidence, particularly when they live on their own.
This is against the background of an expected increase of 25% in the number people in the UK aged over 65 by 2050. That is certainly a massive challenge for any Government. I welcome the expansion of community pharmacies, which are showing good signs of integration and co-operation and take significant time away from GPs. The Government are consulting on extending prescribing rights to dental therapists and hygienists; this is hopefully to be concluded soon, ensuring a faster service. Therefore, patients must be given more powers, via the NHS app, to control their own health and NHS services, and to facilitate self-care in collaboration with professionals. Unfortunately, we have low levels of digital literacy among some staff, patients and service users; that is a barrier that must be worked upon and overcome.
Yes, much has to be done. Much more needs to be done if we are to see patients at the very heart of their health journey.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She and I have sat on a number of Select Committees in recent days, and I have to say that she was excellent as the chair of this committee. She steered us through the depression of weeks on end of people coming to tell us how the IT problems in the NHS were really difficult—and somebody else’s fault. She also took us through the days when people came from NHS England to tell us how perfect the situation was, and how our fears were groundless.
The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and I, week after week, bowled questions to people about IT, data-sharing and data governance, and I do not think we ever got a straight answer. Nor does the Government’s response deal with a critical question: who is responsible for the co-ordination of patient data? We can talk about anything we like, but until that question is answered and can be answered by everybody, we are going round in circles—and so are patients.
In preparation for this debate, I went on to the new NHS information portal. There is a lot of good stuff and good guidance on there, but nothing sufficiently definitive, as yet, to lead us out of the central problem: the responsibility of GPs to be the guardians of data. Such is the amount of patient data they have to deal with and co-ordinate that they are drowning in the system. As we have heard, they are having to deal with different IT systems. I know the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, talked up Manchester, but I urge him to recall that, while Greater Manchester was recording increased health outcomes, two of the boroughs were not. Those boroughs were Oldham and Rochdale, areas I happen to know extremely well, and where for decades there has been a lack of GPs and community health staff.
In London we still have major hospitals that cannot talk to each other because they run on different IT systems. It is as simple as that. Therefore, unless and until we can go back and deal with some of those issues, which we flagged up in our report, we are on a hiding to nothing.
We know that the Pharmacy First programme is being rolled out. Only last week, in a report in the Guardian, pharmacists were cited as saying that they are not being given data. I think this is because GPs are being highly cautious and reluctant to pass on information in case they are held responsible for a data breach.
There are other parts of the health service in which that same problem comes up again—ophthalmology and audiology. Most people who have a problem with their eyes go to an optician, not a GP. The opticians do tests, then they refer somebody to a GP and, if there is a problem, they are sent to the ophthalmology department where, several months later, they go through exactly the same tests and get the same results. The same thing happens in audiology. The story of audiology is not one of the private sector and the NHS working together in a triage system; it is a story of delay, duplication and waste. If we cannot get it right for two conditions for which we have systems that could be put together quite easily—provided a data protocol was established—how will we do it for something such as complex neurological conditions, or some of the conditions that the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, referred to in connection with old age?
I take the opportunity to say that noble Lords should listen to Hanif Kureishi talking this morning on the “Today” programme about what happened to him when he had a blocked catheter, and how he nearly ended up being unnecessarily blued and two’d into A&E, all because somebody could not find a community nurse. They did at the last minute, and he was sorted out.
One of the things we did not manage to get down to in the report, because we were so busy talking to all the GPs who could not sort out these data problems, is the lack of community health staff and the lack of local authorities that know where the health deficits are in their area, working in partnership with primary healthcare staff. I was sitting in an NHS hospital yesterday and I noticed a screensaver that read, “Confidentiality of patient data is everybody’s responsibility”. What it did not say is, “Co-ordination of patient data is nobody’s responsibility”. That is the issue we looked at and on which we came up with several recommendations. It is a great shame that the Government did not listen.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the committee on their report and on securing this debate. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Jamieson and congratulate him on his excellent contribution today.
I declare my interest as an adviser to the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, and the fact that my late father and brother were both dispensing doctors. Dispensing doctors are general practitioners who provide primary healthcare to around 9.9 million rural patients. Almost 3.5 million of those patients live remotely from a community pharmacy and, at a patient’s request, dispensing doctors are allowed to dispense the medicines they prescribe for them. Only certain patients are eligible to receive dispensing services from a dispensing doctor. In total, around 7% of all prescription items are dispensed by such doctors.
The unique benefit of a dispensing doctor service is that it provides access to medicines and general healthcare under one roof. They provide a total network of 1,107 dispensing practices, spread across England, Scotland and Wales, and are a wonderful example of integration between prescribing and dispensing services that are collocated.
Turning to the conclusions of the report and the Government’s response, I think it is important to note that in Scotland health and social care partnerships have existed for a few years, yet funding arguments continue and, despite integration, there is still inadequate funding for social care, with a lack of care placements, delays in discharge from the acute sector and difficulties admitting patients in A&E, so integration has not yet met the needs of patients in Scotland. I ask my noble friend directly: does he agree that neither GPs nor their contracts currently prevent shared facilities? There used to be physios, district nurses, health visitors and others all collocated at a surgery, but it was these very organisations that removed themselves from the premises, not GPs.
I have some points to put directly to my noble friend the Minister. Remote consultations are simply not the answer. Complex patients and multiple conditions need more face-to-face time with GPs. Social care is means-tested; healthcare is needs-led. The difference between them must be addressed before integration can proceed further. Does he not agree that coterminous health and social care areas do not necessarily work for health, where patients may be given a choice, and it could actually destabilise current general practice if that were to happen? I also ask him to consider that it is not about who owns GP practices, which is perhaps a red herring. The Government must address the rules about occupation, then ownership itself becomes irrelevant. Will my noble friend and his department be mindful of the poor history of contracting, particularly GPs contracting out for out-of-hours service?
I ask my noble friend this directly, because this is something where NHS England, particularly in parts of Suffolk, has got the wrong end of the stick: why has EPS for dispensing doctors, and indeed hospitals, not been commissioned and the infrastructure put in place? The question of who is to pay for that infrastructure remains a vexed issue. I put to my noble friend the words of Dr West, who chairs the Dispensing Doctors’ Association; they strike a chord with those of many others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friends who talked about data sharing, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. He asks why there is not one prescribing record per patient. Currently, there are different records for GPs and each hospital where that patient may be treated.
Will my noble friend urgently address the issue of GP training? The government response says:
“We will ensure that all foundation doctors can have at least one 4-month placement in general practice by 2030 to 2031”.
I am staggered, as I am sure others are, that this is not already the case. How can it be that, among doctors who are reaching the end of their training and are looking to have a placement, there are still about 100, as of this week, who do not yet have a placement to go to? That is unacceptable when they have reached the end of what is already a very long period of study and training.
To conclude, if integration is to proceed, which I would welcome, it has to be costed and well thought through. There is no one size fits all. What may well work in an urban area such as Pimlico, which was the example that was chosen, may not work in North Yorkshire or other very rural, sparsely populated areas. It has to be acceptable for the doctors and healthcare workers as well as the patients. Again, I note that integration in Scotland has not yet brought benefits to patients. I urge my noble friend the Minister to put GPs at the centre of patient care and ensure they have access to all patient needs, to ensure better care and fewer emergency admissions to hospital and a joined-up healthcare and social care service.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and all the members of the committee for a very useful report on the challenges of integrating primary and community care, and for some potential solutions. I am grateful particularly for an opportunity to talk about data and technology in the health and care system, which is one of my favourite topics. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on a thoughtful maiden speech. I was delighted to hear that he studied and began his career in my home city of Sheffield. Once people have followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, to get their health sorted out in Greater Manchester, he might agree that they might then want to cross the Pennines to get a decent higher education in Sheffield.
The recommendations in the report on structure were really interesting and substantive. I shall talk about them first, then go on to the data. The report talks about integrated care boards, integrated care services and integrated care partnerships. If I may coin a Latin-based neologism, we could refer to them all as ICXs—integrated care entities. Some valid questions are already being asked about their effectiveness. Having to talk about them in this convoluted way in a sense already indicates that there are some real questions of accountability: who is doing what? To an extent, the thing that is supposed to pull everything together is itself causing some confusion. I read the Government’s response and, on the recommendation on maturity, they said that they were going to start a three-year research programme. This is great and serious, but three years from now will be a long time from when the ICXs were set up.
The Government also talked about the CQC process and about NHS England surveying people to ask about the effects on them in 2025-26. Does the Minister feel there is a sufficient sense of urgency? Trust and morale once lost are very hard to rebuild, and there enough indicators out there. The Government have placed a lot of store on the ICXs delivering all this. If they cannot deliver more quickly, and if we have to wait another three or four years before we really start to understand it, there are some genuine questions to be asked. None of us wants another reorganisation, but we need this thing to work, as the committee’s report has highlighted.
I turn to my favourite subject. Building to some extent on the comments from my noble friend Lady Barker, we need to understand that an interaction with the health and care system is, in technical terms, an event. The real priority is to get a proper record of that event. Three things need to be noted. Who was the person who had the treatment? Which organisation treated them? Ideally, that would go down to the individual, but certainly we want to know the organisation. Furthermore, where did it happen? With these three accurate identifiers, it is possible to start to pull the data together, whichever system it is stored in.
Each person has an NHS number. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister as to how he feels about the rollout of the NHS number. This report talks particularly about NHS organisations. To what extent is this being used within the NHS and other organisations? It is still certainly my experience—and that of others—that hospitals want a hospital number. Why do they want this? Why are they not dealing with the NHS number? It is critical that there is a real push to make sure that the NHS number in which we have invested and which is given to people is being used.
The Government have invested in something called the unique premises reference number—the UPRN. Every single premises in the United Kingdom has its own number. Government policy is to use that everywhere but, again, we are not seeing this happen. I am ready to hear from the Minister about the extent to which this is being pushed out across health and care so that, when talking about where someone is treated, it always means the same place.
Lastly, is there a unique set of basic organisational codes? There are tens of thousands of records so, in that way, it would be possible to identify the organisation that treated someone. Absent all of this, there is something called fuzzy matching. For example, John Smith, who lives in the High Street, was treated at some vaguely named health centre. Humans like that, but computers hate it—computers need precision. Those are the basics. We can then move on to the content of what happened in the interaction. Again, that is complicated. I think we would go a long way and solve a lot of the problems highlighted in the report by just knowing who the person was, uniquely, where they were treated and which organisation dealt with them. That could be done much more quickly.
The report’s recommendation on the data protection guidance was really important. My noble friend Lady Tyler talked about the Government’s response as being vague and technocratic. We end up talking about data protection in these very technical terms, and end up saying that data protection law says no as a default response. If we think about it in much more human and intelligible terms, would anyone be surprised that the data was used in a particular way? This is a basic human test that we can all understand.
If I go to an A&E department, and my medical data goes to the ward then to my GP, I am not going to be surprised—in fact, I will be surprised if it does not make that journey. If you pass it on to a dentist or an optician, I may be okay with that, but I would probably want to have a conversation about it, and say it is fine for some of my medical data to go to dentists and opticians some of the time. If you pass it to a pharma company for something totally unrelated to my own personal care, I might be very surprised and very angry. It is about applying those kinds of human tests.
There is a legal basis behind this that is missing. Will the Minister look at making sure that the people who work in the system are given training to understand the principles behind data protection? I suspect a lot of it is very detailed, telling them what the law says and how to tick the boxes; that is what gets us into this frozen position where data does not flow when it should, and people are surprised it is not flowing. Sometimes data may end up flowing where it should not, because people have not understood that it is happening. In their response, the Government talked about the secure data environment and things like OpenSAFELY. Those are very good solutions for dealing with areas where people would not want data to be flowing freely. We have created a place to deal with that, but let us get the data moving to where we want it to go.
Finally, I wanted to touch on workforce. The NHS workforce plan, which we have all welcomed, rightly focuses on doctors, nurses and other associated medical professions. However, when we are talking about this kind of work, in a lot of cases we need people to be skilled up. We need a very skilled workforce in other disciplines—for example, in change management, which is itself a discipline. Encouraging people to work differently is not something that happens overnight, and it is not necessarily a medical skill. The ICXs would benefit from having a skilled workforce who understand how to do change management.
Contracting is rightly a major feature of the report. It is about writing better contracts and being more insistent with those you are contracting with. It is not just about pounds and pennies and value for money. It is about saying, “We are not going to buy your system if it hasn’t got the right data standard, and I am going to insist on that because I know I can. I am not just going to sign whatever you stick in front me”. That kind of contracting ability is really important. Data analysts, who can look at all the data generated by these systems and figure out what is going on, are highly skilled professionals. I do not think we have got to the point in the workforce plan where we understand that need and how we are going to meet it.
We have an excellent report, and I thank the committee for what they produced. It has zeroed in on some of the real priority areas. The Government’s response is well intentioned but thin, and I hope that the Minister can put a bit more flesh on the bones of what they are going to do in practice.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley on her incisive introduction of what I consider to be a pragmatic and thoughtful report, although I am sure it did not make for pretty reading by the Minister. I thank all members of the committee for their thorough application to the task that was before them: to shine a light on integrating primary and community care to put patients at the centre, which is exactly how it should be. They have done it by offering solutions that are, to quote my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley, “simple and virtually cost-free”. I am sure that your Lordships’ House would say to any incoming Government, “Watch and learn”.
I am delighted to commend the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on his excellent maiden speech, through which he surely honoured the memory of his late mother. As the noble Lord so clearly understands the links between health, housing, environment and other factors, I am sure that we can all look forward to his constructive future contributions.
Day in and day out, primary and community care services provide vital support to millions but, like much of the NHS, they are under considerable strain. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, acute services receive more attention and priority from the Government.
The backdrop to this debate is that backlogs have now reached more than 1 million in community health services. The latest NHS data shows primary care delivering almost 30 million more appointments in March, which is an increase of 25% compared to the same period before the pandemic. Yet, as your Lordships’ House has noted on many occasions, the greatest economic returns from the NHS budget come from investing in primary and community care. This makes good sense.
Some £14 is added to the economy for every £1 invested, and, crucially, it lowers demand in the need for hospital and emergency care. This begs the question being probed in this debate, and which is the headline question to put to the Minister: if these points are accepted—and maybe they are not, in which case I am sure the Minister will say that—then why is there a concentration on acute services, at the expense of prevention and proper integration between primary and community care? There is also a lack of proper integration between the NHS and social care. Why has this situation been allowed not just to develop but to deepen in its severity?
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, highlighted that it was repeatedly put to the committee that poorly co-ordinated care undermines the quality of patients’ experiences and can have profound consequences for their long-term health. It should not be that somebody’s health and well-being gets worse because professionals do not contact each other; because patients are made to make inconvenient and unnecessary trips to multiple locations and practitioners; because staffing is inadequate; or because records are not being shared. It is telling that a broad range of witnesses repeatedly spoke of the problematic lack of integration between social care and the National Health Service, even though social care was not within the remit of the report.
For all this, I have heard noble Lords describe the Government’s response to this report as delayed, disappointing and failing to match words with the necessary focus and action. I welcome the principles behind the report’s key recommendations. I trust that the Minister will do likewise and tell your Lordships’ House what more the Government will be doing than is currently the case.
I am sure that many noble Lords will, like me, remember the ambitions articulated during the passage of what is now the Health and Care Act to formalise the integration of primary and community services. However, NHS leaders are telling us that this is not supported by the current commissioning and contracting arrangements. The policy continues, they say, to be developed in silos from the centre, both at NHS England and at the department. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this observation.
For many of us, being treated at home, or as close to home as possible, is best for our health. It is how we want to be cared for. It is also the most efficient and cost-effective for the National Health Service. Nobody wants to be left waiting until hospital treatment is needed; that makes no sense at all. As envisaged in the Health and Care Act, integrated care systems still have the potential to create more joined-up health and care, with primary care being integrated into broader NHS services in the community, through schemes such as Pharmacy First and through the extension of access to services, such as by evening appointments to fit around the needs of local populations.
There is no appetite for further structural reform, but we need to know what is working and what is not. What assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of ICSs? What are the obstacles to success and how will they be overcome? Is everything in place to ensure that ICSs can make the best possible use of their allocated funds to plan and innovate?
The report highlights the need for a seamlessly integrated patient-centric healthcare sector where patients are given the type of care that they need, when, where and how they need it, whether that be through access to a GP, a pharmacist or a district or mental health nurse. I can tell the House from these Benches that if the next Government are a Labour one, we are committed to making change so that more people get care at home in their community—shifting services out of hospitals and into the community, so that the NHS becomes as much a neighbourhood health service as it is a National Health Service.
The report also says that the Government should focus more on preventive rather than reactive care to tackle the needs of an ageing population, many of whom are coping with complex health issues which require intricate and continuous care. We share that view and are committed to change: we will focus on prevention, shifting the focus to embedding long-term planning, tackling the social inequalities that influence health, ensuring children have the best start possible, empowering people to take responsibility for their health, improving screening programmes and boosting capacity in local public health teams.
I was struck by the observation articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the committee heard more frustration expressed by witnesses on the inadequacy of digital connectivity than almost anything else. They identified technical issues, cultural attitudes and misunderstandings about GDPR. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put it well: that currently, the co-ordination of patients’ data is no one’s responsibility. How do the Government intend to address that point?
What is the Minister’s view as to whether legislation and guidance need to be reviewed to ensure that the tension, whether real or unjustified, between data privacy and effective healthcare planning and provision is overcome? As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, raised, does the Minister consider that appropriate training has been and is being given?
Turning to the workforce, dealing with the problems of its recruitment, retention, numbers, training, morale and well-being will support the integration of services, as spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. What plans are there to include integration in training, and how will NHS and local government staff be made aware of other services and how to work closely with them? Does the Minister consider that the social care workforce should be a component of the NHS long-term workforce plan?
Putting patients at the centre is, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong wisely observed, far from outlandish. Wrapping the NHS around the patient, instead of the patient having to wrap themselves around the NHS, is how it should be. I hope that this report will contribute to that outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and all the committee, for their work on this report. I hope that noble Lords will see from my speech that this report is appreciated. Directly on the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay: the recommendations are welcome, and I hope that my speech will set out how we are acting on them.
Before I get into the detail, like other noble Lords, I want to acknowledge my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s maiden speech. He brings a wealth of experience to this, both professionally and from local government. I was particularly struck by his passion for housing. I must admit it is one that I share: it is core to so many people’s lives, in terms of well-being, their sense of happiness, security and stability, and, of course, their health. I look forward to discussing further how we can make that the core of so many things. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, rightly said, the noble Lord’s mother would be proud of him today.
I will start by recognising the points made by all noble Lords about the importance of primary care and community care integration. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that nearly all of the four former Ministers strongly made the point that we see more and more resources going to hospitals, and we also know that there are more and more patients who do not need to go there. Around 50% of the people who go to A&E do not really need to be there. We see a lot of children under 12 going in with tooth decay, when better primary care and dental services would avoid that. Unless we change things, we will see the situation set out by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson: staff levels in healthcare will go from one in seven of the population to one in four, and then one in three.
I think we all agree that we have to get upstream of the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, rightly set out the need for prevention. I have seen some excellent examples of that, and Redhill is just one. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and others described the excellent examples we have seen in the work of Professor Sam Everington in east London: making primary care central to care in the community, and assessing how many services can be taken out of acute settings.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, centring the service around the needs of the individual, in contrast to the existing set-up, needs a shift in resources towards primary care. Our belief is that that can occur only if the ICBs, ICPs and ICSs are equipped with the information and have that helicopter view and the ability to shift resources from one to the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked a very direct and correct question about why we are increasing hospital care resources. I have some lived-in experience of that. It is a gutsy move to say that we will shift resources away from the hospitals. To make the whole equation work, you are often talking about reducing hospital services and the number of hospital beds, and putting them in the community instead, which we all agree is absolutely the right way to go. But we all know the reaction you get from local groups as soon as you try to do something like that. I completely agree that “neighbourhood health service” should be the name. It takes cross-party work to do that, regardless of who is in government after the next election. Speaking candidly, we need to provide each other with air cover during some of those difficult conversations, including with the ICBs and ICSs. For my part, I pledge to play that role, whether I am sitting on this Bench, the Bench opposite or any other bench after the election.
I am sorry that the government response was seen as disappointing. I hope we can address a lot of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. We agree with the whole emphasis of the report and its recommendations, the analysis of the problems and the need to focus resources on primary care and prevention. We also agree with the substance of most of the recommendations.
Our main difference is whether we should be mandating the recommendations on the ICBs, ICPs and ICSs, versus enabling them to adopt them. For want of a better word, this is a bet that we are putting on the ICBs, that they are the right bodies to do this, giving them the time and the space to try to do that. I admit that I am naturally resistant—and that is likely to show in the emphasis in many of my replies—on whether we should be mandating them, when we want to give them the flexibilities to do those things at a local level. We should be enabling them to do it, and we should be encouraging them to do it, but where we stop earlier is on whether we should be insisting and mandating them.
I hope that that gives a general sense, but I shall turn to each part, starting with structure and organisation. I agree with the committee’s recommendations to allow the ICSs the appropriate time to mature before introducing any wholesale system reforms. I hear the point of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that three years is a long time. We need to make sure that we get some of those early indicators as we go along, but at the same time we need to give them time to bed down and accept that some will do a better job than others, which of course is the inevitable consequence of giving people the ability to manage their own local systems.
On the integration, we are giving these bodies the ability to bring together the NHS, the councils, the voluntary sector and the others, with the focus on prevention and better outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, emphasised the importance of prevention, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, addressed the raising of life expectancy and quality of life. I am pleased to inform the House that we see the NHS health check as a flagship cardiovascular disease prevention programme. As mentioned, using the app is a key way in which people can engage with that, book their services and have a lot of those type of tests at home.
With respect to the committee’s recommendation relating to a single accountable officer and coterminosity, ICSs have the flexibility to develop accountability arrangements that best meets the need of their local population. We have various successful models of accountability implemented, including as partnerships and committees. Again, where an ICS identifies that its boundary is not meeting local needs, it can request a review. Local authorities are a critical partner here. The NHS has recently published a process for boundary change requests that requires support from all local authority partners in this. At the same time, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned in her speech some of the challenges around being coterminous with borders, and how that can cut across some of the things that we want to see happening in terms of choice. It is not always a straightforward question. Again, that shows that this should not be something we are mandating, but we are enabling the ICBs to address that, if it is the right thing for their area.
On the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on elected officials chairing ICBs, NHS England has set criteria prohibiting all ICB chairs and non-exec members from holding a public office role, or a role in the healthcare organisation within the ICB area. However, the elected local authority, the local government officials, are able to chair the ICP—the partnership—which of course is a very important committee that sets the health and care strategy.
The committee recommends that the CQC pilot ICS assessments are widely disseminated—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, also raised. I can confirm that the CQC will publish the pilot findings as narrative reports that will be available to the public. The CQC assessments will consider how well health and social care are working together to deliver high-quality care, and the assessment will also score each ICS against the three themes of leadership, integration, quality and safety—I think that is four themes, actually; that is what happens when you try to adjust the brief.
On primary care contracts and funding, as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, also mentioned, the primary care contracts are kept under review and we will consult the profession on any proposed changes. As I think noble Lords know, we launched a public consultation in December 2023 on inclusive schemes and expect to publish a government response later this year.
On the co-location point which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, raised, the Government agree with the benefits of co-location and multiple disciplinary teams for promoting integration, and we expect the different models of integration to be implemented across the country based on local needs and the availability of estates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned investing in primary care. We want GPs to deliver the best care to patients, which is why we are backing the NHS with this significant capital investment in this space. That includes the £4.2 billion this year in operational capital for integrated care boards to allocate locally, including to primary care.
The committee outlined a suggestion to better utilise the better care fund and pooling of budgets. The Government encourage local areas to maximise the full potential of the better care fund and to pool budgets. We have seen local areas committing additional money to their better care fund to support joint commissioning and integration. Place-level committees are crucial to delivering integration, and the Government published a toolkit in October 2023 to support the development of shared outcomes as a powerful means of promoting joint working.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, raised, proactive care involves providing personalised and co-ordinated care and support for people living with complex health and care needs. A good example of where this works well is the Jean Bishop Integrated Care Centre in Hull, a geriatric-led multidisciplinary service. Measured outcomes show that, between April 2019 and September 2022, the service contributed to a 13.6% reduction in emergency hospital attendance for patients aged over 80. Over the same time, there was a 17.6% reduction in emergency department attendances for patients in care homes. However—this also relates to the point on training later on—where we have fantastic examples such as that one, we need to make sure that that is disseminated and understood as part of the integration sharing.
On systems and data sharing, I have to admit that, like the noble Lord, Lord Allan—this will not be a surprise to many people—I am a fellow data anorak. I understand the importance of the NHS number and common place references in that. I learned about fuzzy data matching the hard way in one of my earlier jobs. You need only to look at what happened to the local Laura Ashley store in Kyiv, funnily enough, to see the consequences of fuzzy data matching and having a misallocation of dress sizes, shapes and colours because I did not fully understand the skew references in terms of fully data matching. Therefore I understood the hard way and the consequences of that.
I think we all understand the point the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made about the frustration that many people increasingly express.
The DHSC was called by the report to
“publish high level guidance to standardise the collection of data and portability requirements in commercial data-sharing software, especially for social determinants of health”,
and mandate how clinicians “code” information. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised a key point on responsible handling of data. We already set standards of coding for data and set national standards for data systems to ensure interoperability. The Government have published a plan for digital health and social care that includes milestones for setting standards on interoperability and systems architecture, enabling all relevant health and care data to be accessed by those with a legitimate right to access it at the point of need, no matter where it is held. We are also moving to a system of data access by default for secondary users of NHS data, which will be supported by the implementation of the secure data environments—SDEs—which mean that data from NHS and related services can be used for research without identifying information needing to be shared.
The report also calls for one or more interoperable data systems to be centrally procured, as was rightly flagged as a key issue by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We do not believe that the solution lies in the purchase of a single system for the NHS—we have all seen the past problems that has led to—but we believe it involves the need for a common set of standards and cloud-based architecture to ensure that digital records can be shared electronically, that services are interoperable, and that you can connect information based on the NHS number of the individual rather than one organisation. That will improve the provision of safe and personalised care as patients move between different parts of the health service and the social care system. The approach taken seeks to strike an effective balance between central and local initiatives.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about sharing one prescription record, I say that this is where we see that Pharmacy First has been a vital enabler. Making sure that we have the systems right so that the pharmacy can write into the GP records to show what it is prescribing the patient gives a blueprint that we can repeat across all the systems—it gives the writing capability to do that, so to speak. All 42 ICBs have had a connecting care record solution since March 2022, which is fundamental to how services can share their information.
I am coming up to time. I will quickly say that I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on workforce and training, and that integration of training should be part of all that. I conclude by saying that I will follow up in writing, as ever, to make sure I pick up any questions that have not been answered. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, once more on his maiden speech.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is the end of a long day, and I will be brief. I thank everybody who has spoken. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I look forward to hearing from him a great deal more in the future. I said that I remain to be convinced by the Minister, and I must say that he has made a good fist of it: I feel a bit more convinced now than I did by the Government’s response about the commitment to integration.
What I do not think that he or the Government, or perhaps many other people, have yet done is make this crucial leap of thinking: integration is not an end in itself but only a means to give patients a better experience. If that sounds a bit vague, let us also remember the practical outcomes which come from giving patients a better experience: you prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, as noble Lords have heard; you head off at the pass preventable illnesses, so you save money, and it is a very good investment; and you make use of the most precious of all resources, the patient’s own experience. Nobody knows better about their health than the patient, but they so often feel disempowered because no one listens to them. I hope my colleagues on the committee will remember the nameless professional who said to us that it really did not matter if patients had to tell their story lots of times to lots of different people, because it helped them get their story straight—come on. Those are the kinds of attitudes that we have to overcome. Integrated working in productive teams helps staff retention because staff are happier and more satisfied; integrated training spreads skills and knowledge in a very cost-effective way. I hope the Minister and his colleagues will keep our recommendations under review. Many of them are, as we have emphasised, easily done and at low cost.
We have talked about integration for so many years—for too long. As one of my colleagues said, it is not rocket science but it does require changes. These are not only changes in the way we distribute resources but changes in the mindsets of professionals at all levels in ICBs, in NHSE, in the DHSC and in political parties. The matter is urgent: with every day that goes past, the health of our nation becomes worse. The rewards are great for everyone, but most of all for patients, if we really do manage to put them at the centre.