House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Custody is reserved for those convicted or accused of the most grave offences, and the total number of children in detention has fallen by 82% since 2010. Before a child can be remanded, the court must be satisfied that it is very likely that the defendant will receive a custodial sentence, and must have explicitly considered and rejected the option of remanding him or her into local authority care.
Ms Rimmer
Some 44% of places in youth custody are taken up by children and young people on remand who do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. Yet children held in young offenders institutions spend most of their time locked up in their cells, amid high levels of violence. Does the Minister think that that is the best place to spend time during adolescence?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady makes an important and compassionate point. It is absolutely right that we should invest in the estate, and I am pleased that we are investing in a new secure school, which will open soon. She makes an important point about the decision to remand. Those decisions are made by independent judges—that is correct—but I hope that she will join me in recognising that the reduction in the overall number of children in custody by 82% since 2010 is a positive thing. When I was prosecuting, young people were going inside for being passengers in vehicles taken without consent. Now, they are inside only for the most grave offences.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Lord Chancellor take into consideration one of the recommendations of the Wade report on sentencing for murder? The definition of “children” should be reconsidered. At the moment, someone who is 16 or very often 17 might be tried when they are 18, but they are sentenced as if they are a child. Surely the question should be the crime rather than the age.
Alex Chalk
We have altered the sentencing regime such that the courts can take into account what can be quite significant gaps between the sentencing regime that applies to a 17-year-old and that which applies to an 18-year-old. The courts now have additional discretion to ensure that if somebody is very close to their 18th birthday, they can be treated as more mature, which can mean, in appropriate cases, that the punishment will be more severe.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Almost two thirds of children on remand in youth detention do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, and 17% are acquitted, meaning that they were freed from a criminal charge altogether. It costs between £129,000 and £306,000 per year to keep just one child on remand in youth custody. Does the Minister view that as the best use of public money, or does he feel that it could be managed in a more efficient and effective way with an alternative remand provision?
Alex Chalk
In 2010, the total number of children in custody was over 3,000; that figure is now around 500, so there has been a significant reduction. The decision of whether to remand is a matter for the judges. They can remand in custody only if there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, the child will commit further offences or indeed fail to surrender. We are also investing millions of pounds in Greater Manchester, for example, to see whether there are other options in remanding children into local authority accommodation and not necessarily into custody.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
With the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we are putting the victims code on a statutory footing. It includes a right for any victim of crime to be signposted by the police to correct and appropriate support services. We have quadrupled victims funding since we took office in 2010 to over £150 million a year, and have recruited almost 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers into the criminal justice system. In addition, we provide a range of freephone support lines, including a 24/7 hotline for rape.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Rapists, domestic abusers and stalkers cannot be convicted if trials are not going ahead, and victims are dropping out after being made to wait years for justice. Where is the Government’s plan to tackle the record court backlog, which is making victims wait years for justice?
Laura Farris
We are doing a huge amount to drive down the backlog, which was principally a result of the pandemic. We have increased the fees for both solicitors and barristers by 15%; we have kept open more than 20 Nightingale courts; and we are doing everything within our power to drive down waiting times.
Gareth Thomas
Bearing in mind that Harrow Crown court is not set to reopen for another year because of Ministers’ failure to invest in its repairs early enough, what confidence can victims of crime in Harrow have that Ministers are going to get those who are accused of those crimes to justice much more quickly than is currently the case?
Laura Farris
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the issue with Harrow Crown court is that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered in that building. We are investing more than £220 million in the court estate, because we know how much it matters, not just so that the courts are functioning, but so that the buildings convey the right sense of dignity so that people respect the process. Harrow is just one of 350 courts in England and Wales.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister is right to recognise the work that is being done on the victims code, and I appreciate the Government’s taking on board a number of the recommendations made by the Justice Committee when we engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill.
The Minister will know, however, that there is a particular issue with delays in cases of rape and serious sexual offences, where cases are taken out of the list because prosecuting counsel are not available—they simply cannot be found. She rightly referred to the increase in fees for solicitors and defence counsel. Does she agree that there is now just one piece of the jigsaw that needs to be put in place: to bring the fees for prosecuting counsel in those cases up to the same level as those for defence counsel? That would take about £1.5 million. Will she sit down with the Attorney General and talk with her about how we can do that swiftly?
Laura Farris
I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, that I spoke to the chair of the Bar Council about exactly that issue last week, but I want to provide him with further reassurance. First, there has been correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the senior presiding judge about any case of rape that is more than two years old. That correspondence is a couple of months old, and he said that all cases would be listed by July this year—that applies to 181 cases in England and Wales. I also want to draw my hon. and learned Friend’s attention to something I know he will be aware of: that we have increased the fees for section 28 hearings, which take place in an irregular sequence in the court listing, from £670 to over £1,000.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
On Monday, The Daily Telegraph reported that civil servants are trying to block an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would legislate for the publication of an annual report on crime stats by nationality. Does the Minister support the release of such a report, and what does she think civil servants are worried we will find out? It is time to publish a report and restore trust among the general public.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was not aware of that, but I knew that an amendment had been suggested that was not within the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is a sensible one; we already publish the number of foreign national offenders in prison, but I understand the force of her question, and I am happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
More than 60 lawyers, campaigners, politicians and academics have written a letter in support of the anti-violence against women and girls campaigner and barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who is facing disciplinary action after challenging a judge for taking a “boys’ club attitude” in a ruling on a domestic abuse case. Does the Minister agree that the racial, gender and class-based bias of the justice system must be addressed and that it is right to speak up against injustice? Will she join me in paying tribute to those who are campaigning for a legal sector that genuinely represents, empowers, and is accountable to the wider public?
Laura Farris
I count myself as one of the people who campaigns on violence against women, and there are many other right hon. and hon. Members across this House who do the same thing. The hon. Lady will understand, I hope, why I will not get involved in a disciplinary matter concerning a particular barrister. I know what it is said has been said, and it will be for the relevant standards committee to decide whether or not the barrister is at fault.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that I used to be the victims Minister, and when I was in that role, I tried to stand up for victims whose loved ones had been killed by road traffic incidents. It is fundamentally unfair that if someone is charged with death by careless driving, as compared with death by dangerous driving, the case is not appealable by the victim for leniency. Is that something we are still looking at, as was the case when I was in the Ministry?
Laura Farris
I share my right hon. Friend’s profound concern about death caused by either dangerous or careless driving. As he knows, it was the Conservative Government who created a criminal offence of death by careless driving.
I will just make two points. First, on 28 June 2022, the maximum penalty for the offence of death by dangerous driving was increased to life—previously, it was 14 years. Secondly, we have just agreed to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme so that the complainant will have 28 days to put in their appeal to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who will have a further 14 days to contact the court. We hope that that will encourage more applications, and of course, we keep the category of offences under careful review.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Victims should have the right to know who this Government are letting out of jail early. With today’s news that, despite Ministers’ protestations to the contrary from the Dispatch Box, high-risk offenders have been released early, why should the public have any confidence that this is a Government who put victims first?
Laura Farris
I want to provide some reassurance to the shadow Minister. Under our scheme, no sexual offender, no terrorist offender and nobody who has been convicted of a serious violent crime or been convicted for four years or more will be eligible for early release. I would just remind him that the slight distinction between our scheme and that conducted under the last Labour Government between 2007 and 2010 is that we have a governor lock. That means that the governor of any prison can prevent an individual prisoner from being released early if they do not think that it is suitable to do so, and that was not the case under the last Labour Government.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
The employment tribunal panel composition arrangements are now a responsibility of the Senior President of Tribunals, and I understand that he intends to publish the responses to the consultation on proposed reforms shortly. He has a statutory duty to consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor before making these arrangements, and my noble and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice will be meeting the Senior President of Tribunals—I think tomorrow—to discuss his proposals as part of that duty.
Alan Brown
The introduction of tribunal fees previously led to a 54% drop in the number of cases going forward, and the scheme was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, so it beggars belief that the Government are looking at reintroducing tribunal fees, and giving a green light to bad employers to exploit workers, who will be deterred from coming forward. What does the Minister say to the 50 organisations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Liberty, that are calling on the Government to reconsider the reintroduction of tribunal fees?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of these issues were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The wheels of justice certainly turn slowly under this Government, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are paying the price in the Crown courts, the civil courts, the family courts and tribunals. At the end of 2023, the employment tribunal backlog stood at more than 460,000 cases. Those are cases affecting workers who have been bullied, workers who have been denied pay and workers who have been unfairly dismissed. Does the Minister think that workers, like the Government, should just give up on the justice system, roll over and accept what employers do to them, or is there a new magic formula to sort this out?
Gareth Bacon
The one thing the hon. Gentleman did not of course mention was the impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, and indeed on the employment tribunal system. [Hon. Members: “Oh, come on!”] Opposition Front Benchers do not like hearing it, but they cannot deny the impact of shutting down the system, in effect, for two years. We have massively increased the resources available and we are working through the backlog, but that will take time.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a similar point, in a cost of living crisis, workers are now expected to pay to take their employer to an employment tribunal in cases of wage theft, unpaid redundancy pay and compensation for unfair dismissal. Quite frankly, it is outrageous that this is being levied at a time of intense pressure on family budgets. Do the Government not agree that access to justice must never be contingent on one’s ability to pay, and that these proposed changes ought to be scrapped to promote greater fairness in the system?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We have introduced a regional virtual court to safeguard access to justice, and we will always make that available as far as it is possible to do so. As I say, we are working through the backlog at pace.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The hon. Lady asks about the implications for the criminal justice system of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. To be clear, that Act relates to immigration and potentially administrative law. It does not substantially impact on the criminal law, and accordingly no specific guidance is required.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. May I praise the quick response from solicitors and the community in Glasgow to Rwanda removals, very much in the spirit of the Glasgow Girls and the Glasgow Grannies and Kenmure Street three years ago? Is there a deliberate policy to remove people from Scotland to England to prevent them from accessing legal aid, as they would be able and fully entitled to do in Scotland? What guidance has been issued to lawyers in this respect? Lastly, what right do MPs have to intervene in cases of removal, because I have been told that MPs have been asked for wet signatures from people who have been taken to immigration removal centres in England.
Alex Chalk
There are several questions in there but the answer to the first question is no, that is not correct. The point about legal advice is very important: people should get legal advice so that they can make their points. That is why we are investing heavily: when the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force there will be a 15% uplift; we have invested £1.5 million to reaccredit senior caseworkers; and we are also paying for travel time. We recognise that; the legislation is necessarily robust and we are also ensuring people get the legal advice they need.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I listened with great interest to that answer. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and I have constituents who have been removed from Scotland to England and threatened with deportation. Can the Secretary of State answer this question: why are MPs being denied access to their constituents? It seems outrageous. Does he not agree that this is unacceptable and that lawyers and their elected representatives should not be impeded by arbitrary barriers when accessing constituents who are threatened with deportation?
Alex Chalk
I would be more than happy to discuss that point with the hon. Gentleman. Of course MPs should have access in appropriate circumstances, but the critical point is for individuals to get legal support—I say that with no discourtesy to him as a constituency MP. That legal support is important. As I have said, when the IMA comes into effect we will increase funding by 15%, pay for travel time and ensure the reaccreditation of senior caseworkers. That is what individuals need: support through legal advice, and that is what we are providing.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and also for her typically measured and sensitive contribution to yesterday’s urgent question on this issue. Ensuring our prisons are safe and secure for both staff and prisoners remains our top priority. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has been working closely with G4S, the operator of HMP Parc, to ensure the welfare of prisoners, and I visited last month to see the work for myself. I am particularly conscious of the importance of that in light of the nine deaths in HMP Parc since March.
Jessica Morden
As the Minister mentioned, yesterday I had the opportunity to raise in the House the very real concerns of parents with sons at Parc, particularly in relation to drug use. When I contacted the prison two months ago it replied that in the year to September 2023 there had shockingly been 1,600 incidents of self-harm in a prison of 1,800 inmates. Does the Minister accept that parents have been asking particularly for mental health support for years and it has not been happening?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady again for her question. The provision of mental health support is absolutely vital; it is obviously something that needs to be done hand in hand and in partnership with the local health board in Wales. We continue to work closely with the health board both on the issue she has raised and more broadly on the issues underpinning some of the challenges faced in Parc.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the dire, indeed dangerous, situation we faced at Chelmsford Prison three years ago, when the prison was placed in special measures. He may have seen the latest inspection report which praises the improvements, especially in being a safer and more productive place and the work done to take drugs and contraband out of the prison. I thank the Justice Secretary personally for the focus he gave this issue when he was prisons Minister, and congratulate the governor and the staff. Does the Minister agree that the lessons from Chelmsford could help other prisons such as Parc and that, with the right approach, even the worst prison can be turned around?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her dexterity in asking her question. She makes a very important point in paying tribute to the work that has been done at Chelmsford prison by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, working with the team and all the staff there. I also note the close interest she has taken and how much that means to the staff and the team at her local prison. She rightly points out that there are opportunities to learn lessons from that which may well benefit prisons such as Parc.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Over the 10 years to 2022, proven reoffending rates, cautions and convictions for children and young people have fallen from 40.4% to 32.2%. Although there has been a slight uptick over the past year, the fact remains that reoffending by children and young people has fallen significantly under this Government.
Lilian Greenwood
Last week I saw the powerful new play “Punch” by James Graham. I cannot recommend it highly enough to all right hon. and hon. Members, who are welcome to come to Nottingham Playhouse to see it. It raises important questions about young men and their offending behaviour and shines a light on the potential power of restorative justice. What role does the Minister believe restorative justice can and should play in tackling reoffending, which, as he said, has risen for the first time in a decade among adults and children?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady not just for her question, but for her kind invitation to visit Nottingham Playhouse—it is just up the road from my constituency in Leicestershire, so I might take her up on that. In answer to her substantive question, although decisions on restorative justice are a matter for judges—there are relevant considerations to take into account—I see restorative justice as one element of a package that can help to reduce reoffending and get children and young people who commit crime back on to the straight and narrow.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prison, as is reflected in our policy approach, which has seen £100 million-worth of investment into measures to tackle the smuggling of contraband, including drugs, into prisons. In the year ending March 2023, there were 19.7% fewer incidents where drugs were found than in the year to March 2019, reversing that pre-pandemic trend. There remains more to do, but it is important to note that progress has been made.
Beth Winter
The most recent report by HM inspectorate of prisons into HMP Parc in 2022 found that almost half of prisoners had easy access to drugs, and our current Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into prisons has received evidence regarding drug use, as well as the fact that Parc is understaffed and staff are inexperienced. In light of that evidence, and the recent deaths and surge in recorded violence in Parc Prison, would the Minister welcome a new inspection by the chief inspector? Given the £400 million cost of the contract for G4S to run the prison, has he given consideration to the Prison Service stepping in to manage it, as it has done with Birmingham Prison?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady made a number of points. In terms of tackling drugs, in Parc we have X-ray body scanners and the Rapiscan system, and we have handheld devices being rolled out. In respect of her two specific questions, any inspection is a matter for the chief inspector of prisons. In terms of the overall performance of Parc, it is important to remember that although there are challenges, which were addressed in the urgent question yesterday, Parc is rated as performing well and its contract is performing well. In the 2022 inspection, it got one measure of “good” and three of “reasonably good.” There is more to do, and we will continue to work with the prison, but the contract continues to perform well.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Government boast, as they have done just now, about their investment in new body scanners to detect drugs on everyone entering a prison each day, yet a damning report in The Times found that the body scanners at HMP Bedford were not even staffed. What is the point in spending £100 million on scanners if they are not even used?
Edward Argar
Before turning to the substance of the hon. Lady’s question, may I take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
It is important to remember that this investment is across the estate. I was in HMP Wandsworth yesterday seeing the work being done there. In the context of Bedford, the body scanners were used at appropriate times in an appropriate manner.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Ministry of Justice reoffending statistics show that those serving a sentence of six months or less have a 59% reoffending rate. For offenders punished with suspended sentences or community orders, the reoffending rate is 24%. The Department’s 2019 analysis of a matched cohort of over 30,000 offenders showed lower reoffending rates for those serving sentences in the community when compared with immediate custody of less than 12 months, avoiding tens of thousands of potential crimes.
Richard Graham
I agree with the Bishop of Gloucester that community payback schemes are often far more appropriate than short-term custodial sentences, particularly for women prisoners. If my hon. Friend agrees with that, does he also agree that we could expand the range of community payback activity to include, for example, helping at good local charities such as the Nelson Trust and the Family Haven, and, especially during this summer season of litter picking across the country, keeping Britain tidy?
Gareth Bacon
I thank my hon. Friend for that sensible question. I agree that community payback offers offenders an opportunity to make visible reparations to their local communities, with millions of hours being delivered each year. As an example, this March, for the great British spring clean, offenders spent thousands of hours clearing litter across the country. We are trialling a new way to deliver community payback through the rapid deployment pilot, which was launched last year. Community payback teams are working in partnership with local authorities to see incidents cleaned up within 48 hours’ notice, and we are now expanding that to all 12 probation regions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Restorative justice in Northern Ireland has been an effective method of ensuring that victims and perpetrators can at least come together and perhaps try to find a solution. It is also a way of ensuring lesser sentences. Has the Minister been able to look at the community restorative justice that we have done in Northern Ireland to ensure that those on the mainland who offend can have a new life as well?
Gareth Bacon
I personally have not, but I gather that Minister of Justice officials are abreast of that. I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman to hear more about that from him personally.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Thanks to funding from the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, we are delivering the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 10,000 additional places on track to be delivered by the end of next year. To secure the pipeline of further prisons, last October I announced an investment of £30 million to acquire land even further in advance to mitigate the risk of planning delay. We are also delivering an additional 460 rapid deployment cells across the estate.
Jeff Smith
The National Audit Office warned the Government over four years ago that prisons would run out of space by 2023. Of the promised 20,000 places, it has been revealed that only just over a quarter have been delivered, so as a result we see the Government spending £50 million renting out police cells, grim conditions in overcrowded prisons and a chaotic early release scheme. Why have the Government proved incapable of averting this crisis?
Alex Chalk
As a result of the record amount of investment in prisons, we brought on HMP Fosse Way, and we have HMP Five Wells. I invite the hon. Member to visit them, because these are excellent, modern prisons with fantastic rehabilitative conditions, providing an excellent opportunity to keep the public secure and prisoners rehabilitated. We will also be rolling out HMP Millsike. We have planning permission for HMP Gartree. We are also rolling out houseblocks at Stocken, Rye Hill and Guys Marsh; and there will be further ones at Gartree. This is a Government who believe in building, and we are getting on with the job.
Mary Robinson
Managing prison capacity is in part about ensuring that we have enough prison officers, but being a prison officer can be both demanding and dangerous, with 70% of prisoners between the ages of 25 and 49—at the peak of their physical fitness. My prison officer constituent told me that, despite that, the officer retirement age is 68, meaning that staff well into their 60s are dealing with young and often aggressive people. While it is important to retain experienced prison officers and recruit to the service, what consideration has my right hon. and learned Friend given to reducing the retirement age in line with policing?
Alex Chalk
Prison officers are the absolute backbone of the system, and it is absolutely right that we should recruit and retain. I am pleased to say that in 2023 we recruited an additional 1,600 officers and, just as importantly, the resignation rate is coming down, from 10.5% to 8.5%. That is really positive. On my hon. Friend’s point about retirement, it is worth knowing that the employee contribution rate to pensions for prison officers is one of the most competitive in the public sector. That is exactly as it should be. On the specific point of retirement age, I will be happy to discuss that with her further.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
It is important to flag at the outset that confidentiality clauses are only ever used in the civil context, rather than the criminal. With that in mind, we are tabling an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to make any non-disclosure agreement void if it purports to restrict the right of an individual to report the same act to the police or to access any kind of medical or therapeutic support—a move that has been welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Bar Council.
Wera Hobhouse
Thousands of people are silenced due to non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses in cases of alleged sexual violence, bullying and harassment. The Legal Services Board has reported that signatories of NDAs suffer devastating impacts due to fear of retribution. Pregnant Then Screwed has said that an estimated 435,295 mothers have been gagged by an NDA or confidentiality clause. The Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) would end the misuse of NDAs in the workplace. Why are the Government so hesitant about supporting a statutory ban?
Laura Farris
As someone who spent more than a decade practising as an employment lawyer, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a role for the confidentiality clause in any kind of compromise agreement when both sides resolve their dispute without going to court, and without admission of liability or any finding of liability on either side. We recognise that when they are used in their most extreme form, particularly in the most high-profile sexual harassment claims, victims have told us that they felt they could not go to the police or access counselling. We have righted that wrong. However, I will stand up for confidentiality clauses, and I want to correct slightly the hon. Lady’s point: they are only really encountered where there is a dispute concerning the Equality Act 2010. That needs to be immediately contextualised—it applies only in employment, education and in the provision of goods and services. We have taken the same step in relation to students through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Reducing reoffending is a core mission of these Ministers and this Government. That is why we have prioritised accommodation for prison leavers and why we have invested heavily in employment, with prison employment leads and employment hubs in every resettlement prison. Crucially, the plan is working: in the two years to March 2023, the proportion of prison leavers in employment six months post release more than doubled.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, providing safe and secure accommodation for ex-offenders when they leave prison is the first and most important part of getting them on the path to rebuilding their lives. What action is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that that happens, so that people are not tempted to reoffend?
Alex Chalk
No one in this House has done more than my hon. Friend to look after the plight of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. I am proud to say that the proportion of offenders in homes for their first night post release is 86%. That is because we have rolled out 12 weeks of guaranteed community accommodation. I went to Luton and Dunstable and spoke to a probation officer who had worked there for 30 years, and he said that was the single most significant policy roll-out of his entire career. It is critical to ensure that prisoners and ex-offenders can be rehabilitated.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that reoffending rates would reduce further if we had a more concentrated attack on the illicit substances that continue to go into prisons, as well as the massive use of prescription drugs, which many people in prisons tell me are causing problems for people close to release?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point, and he is right. The reoffending rate is worth focusing on: in 2010 it was around 31%, and now it is 25%. The reason for that is a combination of focusing on accommodation, as we have just discussed, and employment so that people have a stake in society, as well as tackling substance abuse. We are looking at technology with great focus, to ensure that people can be treated for their substance addition on the inside by the very clinicians who will treat them on the outside. That continuity is vital to get them off drugs and rehabilitate them.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Juries are a vital part of our criminal justice system, and jury service is an important civic duty. We want to do everything we can to help jurors feel supported as they undertake that important role, which is why the Government have announced our intention to test counselling sessions for jurors who suffer mental and emotional strain following a trial. That pilot will commence in 15 courts this summer.
Sarah Dyke
Currently, jurors dealing with extremely violent crimes, witnessing ever-increasingly sophisticated and graphic material, often feel that they do not have sufficient aftercare to deal with their experiences. They are advised to seek counselling only with their GP or the Samaritans. What discussions has the Minister had on increasing the amount of post-trial support for jurors when they have faced potentially traumatic levels of stress as a result of their experience?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is extremely relevant. As she can imagine, there have been extensive discussions between the Department and the judiciary about this. The senior presiding judge has approved the test sites for the pilot that I have just discussed. Support of the type that we are providing in the pilot has not been provided before, so the pilot itself will inform an essential part of the judgment we make on whether and how we can carry on.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Access to legal aid matters. We have taken action to broaden access in immigration and asylum cases by: uplifting fees for work done under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, when it commences; providing up to £1.4 million this year for accreditation and re-accreditation of senior caseworkers conducting legal aid work; allowing detained duty advice scheme providers to give guidance remotely, where appropriate; and introducing payment for travel time between immigration removal centres and detained duty advice scheme surgeries.
Steven Bonnar
The Bar Council of England and Wales has submitted its grave concerns to the Ministry of Justice’s review of civil legal aid, citing that it is
“not sustainable in its current form”
and that it has significant concern
“in relation to future availability of counsel”
in immigration and asylum cases. It also notes that in real terms civil legal aid fees have now halved compared with what they were 28 years ago. What are the next steps to ensure the future of legal aid in immigration cases, or is justice now for only the wealthy?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important question. We are broadening access to legal aid. The means test review, when fully implemented, will put an additional £25 million into legal aid and bring an additional £2 million into the scope of legal aid. We are rolling out the housing loss prevention advice service—that is another £10 million going in. There will be up to £141 million going into legal aid. We are also rolling out the review of civil legal aid, which will report later this year. We will be issuing a Green Paper in July to look at what we need to do to have a sustainable, resilient and well-resourced system, because we want high-quality lawyers doing civil legal aid. That is vital for the kind of country we want to be.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We remain committed to reducing the outstanding case loads across our courts in England and Wales. To enable the courts to get through more cases, we have extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms this financial year, allocated £220 million for essential modernisation and repair work of our court buildings up to March next year, and funded unlimited sitting days, including 107,700 days during the most recent financial year, the highest level since 2016.
Mr Carmichael
For anyone who has been a victim of crime, delays in getting cases into court add massively to the stress and anxiety they experience. What would the Secretary of State say to any Member whose local magistrates court had 1,954 criminal cases waiting to be heard at the end of December 2023? Would he say that a backlog of that scale was acceptable?
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about magistrates courts. It is true that case loads in magistrates courts, which of course deal with over 90% of crimes—common assault, criminal damage, non-residential burglary and so on—are significantly lower than they were during the pandemic. The particular pressure is in the Crown court. We made a decision of principle during the white heat of covid not to get rid of jury trials. Now, I know that in Scotland the SNP Government are a little ambivalent about jury trials, but we think they are a very important part of the rights of free-born Britons. We will hold fast to them and we will put in resources: more Nightingale courts; more judges, by raising the retirement age; and more legal aid. We will invest in and recover the system while holding fast to our principles.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When I was a Justice Minister, I introduced virtual hearings so that cases could proceed much more effectively. Will the Lord Chancellor kindly update the House on the progress of those hearings?
Alex Chalk
I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend, who was such a distinguished Minister in this Department. He did indeed introduce virtual hearings in our courts, and time has proved how prescient he was, because that was the right thing to do. I welcome the recent decision by the Judicial Office to make remote hearings the default arrangement for bail applications. In a wider context, a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), which is currently making its way through Parliament, will amend legislation so that magistrates and judges in magistrates, county and family courts will be able to hear cases remotely when that is appropriate.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The National Audit Office report on the management of legal aid was a valuable piece of work, and we are considering its conclusions carefully. The Government hugely value the work of legal aid lawyers, which is why we commissioned a review of civil legal aid to identify options for the delivery of a more effective, efficient and sustainable system for legal aid providers. A Green Paper containing policy options is planned for July this year.
Mohammad Yasin
There are no providers of housing legal aid in the borough of Bedford, and the number of people living within 10 km of a provider of legal aid housing advice in England and Wales has fallen from 73% to 64% in the last decade. Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever legal redress is provided in the Renters (Reform) and Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bills will be meaningless if there is no legal aid system to enforce those reforms?
Alex Chalk
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the £10 million that is going to the Housing Loss Prevention Advisory Service, which is a revolutionary step to ensure that those who are at risk of eviction can access the legal aid they require in order to make their case. I respectfully invite the hon. Gentleman to come and see me so that I can discuss this with him further and he can be a voice for his constituents, signposting them to the support that is available, because it is important for them to be aware of the support that the Government are providing.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
The Government have taken significant steps to prevent domestic abusers from using the justice system to extend control over their victims. Section 65 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prevents them from cross-examining their victims and requires special measures to be available in court, and we have also amended prohibition orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, which can bar any individual from making a further application to court without permission when abusive partners are judged to be bringing victims back to court without reasonable purpose.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend takes domestic abuse very seriously, but is she aware that perpetrators all too frequently seek to use the civil courts to perpetrate further abuse of their victims, often with the support of legal aid and often using “experts” with no relevant qualifications to make accusations of, for instance, parental alienation or child grooming? Can she please reassure me that the Government are taking this matter seriously, to ensure that perpetrators do not continue to use our courts system to retraumatise their victims?
Laura Farris
My right hon. Friend asks an excellent question, but let me first remind her that this is precisely the issue at which the section 91(14) prohibition orders are directed. Moreover, one of the changes made under the Domestic Abuse Act gave the courts themselves the power to make those orders of their own volition, rather than waiting for an application from the victim.
As for the second part of my right hon. Friend’s question, to the extent that we are making changes to legal aid, all those changes are in favour of the victim. We are removing illiquid and contested assets from consideration of means, all protective orders can be obtained without any assessment of means, and we are undertaking a legal aid means test review to make the test much more generous to victims.
My right hon. Friend’s final point concerned the so-called experts who give evidence on parental alienation. The Government do not recognise the concept of parental alienation, and do not believe that it is a syndrome capable of diagnosis. We have responded to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on this subject in writing.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Since the last session of Justice questions, I have met my G7 ministerial counterparts in Italy to discuss topics ranging from preventing illegal migration to tackling organised crime. Furthermore, we have announced a new offence—in which, incidentally, my G7 colleagues were very interested—prohibiting the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, announced measures to remove parental responsibility from those convicted of the rape of a child, made progress with the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in the House of Lords to support access to justice for those such as the postmasters, and introduced an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to provide further protection for victims against unnecessary disclosure of counselling notes.
I have also attended the “Unlocking Investment in Ukraine” conference, which brought together Ukrainian lawyers and eminent British jurists. We in this country understand the importance of a strong legal sector to secure Ukraine’s future. The British people and this Parliament are determined to ensure that once it has won the war, Ukraine wins the peace as well.
Mr Sharma
With more than 80,000 children caught up in private family law proceedings, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the welfare of children is protected?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising private family law, because all too often people raise the issue of crime, but family matters too. I am really delighted that we have managed to secure funding from the Treasury to roll out early legal advice in private family law. Alongside the Pathfinder pilot scheme, it is designed to make the process of dealing with private family disputes more seamless and less painful, and ultimately ensure that children are put first.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Alex Chalk
If someone is the victim of a “crash for cash” scam, they are likely to be the victim of an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 or, potentially, under the Road Traffic Act 1988. We have quadrupled the funding for victims of crime, who are entitled under the victims code to be kept updated about the crime, to be notified about compensation and to be offered special measures if the case gets to court. Regardless of whether someone is the victim of “crash for cash”, theft or any other crime, the state should be there to provide the support they need.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
This week the chief inspector of prisons found that, at HMP Lewes, the Government’s early release scheme is undermining safety and risk management. In one case, a high-risk prisoner was released early despite being a risk to children, having a history of stalking and domestic abuse, and being subject to a restraining order. Is this the Secretary of State’s idea of putting public safety first?
Alex Chalk
I read that report with care and will be looking very carefully at that specific case. It is important to read precisely what the chief inspector said. He said that that was an incident right at the beginning of the process, and he expected that things would bed down as we move on. The critical point is that under the Government’s scheme, if there is a concern about an individual who is proposed to be eligible, the governor can impose a veto, which gets the decision escalated to a panel. That is an important safeguard, and it was not present under the Labour scheme, as the hon. Lady well knows.
Shabana Mahmood
Report after report; failure after failure. At Parc Prison, nine people have died in just two months. At Bedford, cells were flooded with raw sewage. At Wandsworth, a suspected terrorist escaped last year, the prison is still not secure and the governor has resigned. She has taken responsibility. When will the Secretary of State?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is right to say there are prisons where the standards are not where we want them to be. There are something like 120 prisons in the estate, and we are the party that created the urgent notification system so that these matters can be drawn to the attention of the Government, but I will make the following point. There are prisons that have failed in the past, and we have turned them around. Take HMP Liverpool, which I went to. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will remember that in 2017 there was a scathing report about the prison, which has been turned around. It is safe, decent and rehabilitative, and prisoners are doing excellent work. Or take HMP Chelmsford, which had a UN and has been turned around. We take this issue incredibly seriously, and we are the party that is investing record amounts in our estate. In government, Labour boasted that it would bring in three Titan prisons, but it brought in one.
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, this is topicals. I have to get your colleagues in, and I am sure you would not want them to miss out.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Alex Chalk
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important point. Fewer than 1% of tenancies required court action in 2019, but for difficult cases that do escalate to the courts, the Government recognise the importance of making sure that the process is smooth and efficient. Nearly 90% of county courts are currently listing possession hearings within four to eight weeks after a claim is received. On bailiff recruitment issues, we are running recruitment campaigns and have reduced administrative burdens to free up resources for bailiffs to focus on enforcement activity.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the work of probation. I put on record—as I know my shadow would and I know she would—our gratitude to all those who work in our probation service. Over the long term, since 2021 we have put an extra £155 million a year into the probation service, and 4,000 more staff in training. She will have also seen the recent announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in respect of the probation reset to enable probation officers to focus their time on where it makes the greatest difference and has the greatest impact.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that officials have reviewed and considered ICROs, which involve the use of electronic monitoring, curfew arrangements and rehabilitative requirements targeted towards offenders who would otherwise be in custody. In June last year, we began a pilot of a scheme similar to the one he proposes, involving intense supervision courts, which divert offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences and provide them with wrap-around, multi-agency support to target the root causes of their offending behaviour.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point on behalf of her constituents, and I will write to her.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Gareth Bacon
In response to the Wade review, we have increased sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour, that involve overkill or that are connected with the end of a relationship. We have also consulted publicly on sentencing starting points for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour and for murders committed with a knife or other weapon. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the consultation and will publish their response in due course.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Edward Argar
No, I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which may not surprise him. In respect of Bedford Prison, which he and I have spoken about, we continue to put the investment into both staff and the prison to make progress following that urgent notification.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
A constituent recently attended my surgery in Bishop Auckland to disclose her serious concerns about poor communications from both the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the family court-appointed children’s guardian in her case. This is an extremely distressing time for her and her family, so good communication is surely key. How can the Minister ensure that my constituents will receive the support and advice they need in a timely fashion?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for being so assiduous in raising this important matter on behalf of her constituents. We are investing heavily in the family system to deal with precisely these issues. If something has gone wrong in that specific case, perhaps she will be kind enough to come to see me so that we can discuss it further.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
The total number of IPPs is slightly higher than that but, looking into the data, the really significant factor is that, whereas there were some 6,000 IPP prisoners in 2012, the number who have not been released is down to around 1,200. Our action plan tries to address that. Our reforms are designed to ensure that, when IPP prisoners are released, they do not face a licence period of 10 years, which can lead to them being recalled at any time. Reducing it to three years is a humane and sensible way of trying to erase this stain on the conscience of our justice system.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Yesterday, The New Yorker published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and the competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of the trial. The article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice. Will the Lord Chancellor look into this matter and report back to the House?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this. Court orders must be obeyed, and a person can apply to the court for them to be removed. That will need to take place in the normal course of events.
On the Lucy Letby case, I simply make the point that juries’ verdicts must be respected. If there are grounds for an appeal, that should take place in the normal way.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Alex Chalk
We have increased capacity in the system. We have opened 20 Nightingale courts, including Cirencester Crown court in my county of Gloucestershire. We have increased the number of judges by 1,000. We have put up to £141 million into legal aid. We have raised the retirement age. And we are ensuring there is support for victims, including through independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, and by introducing a rape support helpline, and so on. We are doing everything we can to support victims, to increase capacity in the system and to heal the damage caused by covid.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor will know that there is particular concern about the growth of the remand population in our prisons, which causes great disruption. He will also know that the senior presiding judge and others are taking innovative measures to list remand cases, but will the Lord Chancellor confirm that, to support that, there will be no financial cap on sitting days in the Crown courts?
Alex Chalk
As always, my hon. and learned Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Before the pandemic, around 9,000 people were in custody awaiting trial. The figure is now closer to 16,000, which plainly has an impact. It is because we did not get rid of jury trials, which was the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Lord Chief Justice and the senior presiding judge for considering remote hearings of bail applications, to ensure that more lawyers are able to do the cases. Having enough practitioners, as well as sitting days, is critical, and both will have my attention.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Last week’s letter to the Justice Secretary from the chief inspector of prisons again highlighted the dreadful conditions in Wandsworth Prison. Will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to end the overcrowding?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is right to raise this hard-hitting, searing report. I was interested to note that, although there is a full complement of officers, the prison simply is not delivering the regime that it should. We absolutely accept that. Of course, the high remand population is an issue at Wandsworth, but Cardiff and Liverpool have achieved fantastic results. It can be turned around, so we are responding rapidly. We have already invested heavily, and £24 million has been spent. We have already deployed extra staff at all grades, and we will be providing support. A prison standards coaching team is offering face-to-face coaching for band 3 officers, with further deployment shortly.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I appreciate that an inquiry is being conducted regarding the Horizon scandal, but what is the Department doing to hold to account those lawyers who prosecuted sub-postmasters despite the evidence being to the contrary?
Alex Chalk
Anybody who appears in court, but particularly prosecutors, must be mindful of their solemn and sacred duty to disclose material to the defence that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution—that is literally the most important rule. If they failed in this case, I would expect the appropriate authorities to take robust and prompt action.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Since I last raised this question with Ministers, it has now been estimated that there are more than 10,000 victims of the SSB Law scandal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) said, we are hosting an event later today to listen to those victims talk about the real impact on their lives—I extend an invitation to the Minister. Will he commit to my asks of real compensation and protection for the victims of what is now a national scandal?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. I will consider it and respond in due course.
Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the High Court judgment in Belfast of 13 May 2024 disapplying the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Northern Ireland.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
Let me start by expressing the Government’s disappointment at this judgment. We continue to believe that our policy is lawful, that our approach is compatible with international law and, specifically, that the Illegal Migration Act proposals are compatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework. The Government will take steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended and not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration.
This judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We continue to work to get regular flights off to Rwanda in the coming weeks, and nothing will distract us from that or from delivering to the timetable I have set out. We must start the flights to stop the boats.
The Government have consistently applied immigration law on a UK-wide basis. It is important to remember that those who have been served a notice for removal to Rwanda are being considered under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Safety of Rwanda Act. This judgment relates to the Illegal Migration Act and so does not impact our operations or planning for Rwanda.
Preparations to begin flights within weeks are continuing at pace. As the Prime Minister made clear, “nothing will distract us” from the job of implementing the Rwanda policy. We must start the flights to stop the boats. That is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do for our country and it is the humane thing to do. Our conviction that the Rwanda scheme is lawful and necessary is unchanged. We are acting in the national interest and we will not be deterred.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful for that response, and I thank the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for being present today. But we need not be here, as the issues elucidated yesterday by the High Court in Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during the passage of both the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda Act. When my colleagues and I raised these concerns here in Parliament, we were told by the Government that we were wrong, yet the High Court in Belfast said yesterday that we were right. The only difference between the encroachment on the application of our sovereign immigration policy in Northern Ireland, as of the rest of the United Kingdom, by the Illegal Migration Act is that a case was advanced on the basis of that Act, yet a case on the Safety of Rwanda Act has not yet been considered. However, the Government will know that the rationale outlined yesterday by the High Court for the Illegal Migration Act will similarly apply to the Safety of Rwanda Act as well.
It need not be so. Although the Government chose to dismiss the concerns we outlined in this House, and that our colleagues outlined in the other place, they had an opportunity to put this issue beyond doubt. I tabled an amendment to new clause 3, along with my colleagues, giving the Government the opportunity to put the issue to bed, in order to maintain the integrity of this country’s sovereign immigration policy and the integrity and protection of our borders, but they chose not to do so. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated his willingness to appeal, but when they had the opportunity to put the issue beyond doubt, why did they not do that? Do they recognise that in not doing so they have significantly impaired the uniformity of the UK’s immigration policy?
In 1922, long before the EU was envisaged, and long before the UK joined and then departed, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland had an integrity in immigration policy: the common travel area applied. What steps are the Government taking to get a British Isles solution to immigration, outside the control of the EU and outside, as it is, the Schengen area? Finally, what steps will the Minister and his Government take to assert Parliament’s sovereign will to protect the borders of the United Kingdom?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone as he eloquently makes his case. I note the narrative that he has advanced. The Government are considering judgment very carefully, as you would expect, Mr Speaker, and we are taking legal advice. I can reconfirm, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the Government intend to appeal the judgment.
We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover reserved issues, such as illegal migration. We are equally clear that immigration is a reserved matter that has always been applied uniformly across the UK. We do not accept that the Good Friday agreement should be read so creatively as to extend to matters such as tackling illegal migration, which is a UK-wide issue and not in any way related to the original intention of the Good Friday agreement.
On the specific point about the common travel area, all immigration legislation provides a UK-wide framework for legal and illegal migration. We continue to have a constructive working relationship with the Irish Government when it comes to ensuring that abuse of the common travel area is robustly and appropriately tackled. On the specific point about asserting Parliament’s sovereign will around these matters, I would argue that the recent Safety of Rwanda Act clearly asserts Parliament’s sovereign will. While the latest judgment relates to the IMA, we are committed to appealing it.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
This case, together with the case a few months ago about the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, have a common theme: the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework and the direct application of EU law. What are the Government going to do about that? Will they seek to expedite the appeal directly to the Supreme Court? It seems to me this is a fundamental issue that need resolving. Further, will they seek further clarification, either from the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol or by other means, to clarify the situation and protect non-devolved matters from being dealt with in this way?
Tom Pursglove
I am always grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his contribution. He speaks with real authority, given his professional background, his role in this House, and his former position as a distinguished Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor. He will recognise that the court will make its final order in two weeks, when an appeal can be brought. He made a number of observations, on which Ministers will reflect when taking decisions, but as I have said, and as the Prime Minister has made very clear, it is our intention to appeal this judgment. We think that it is right and proper to take all steps necessary to defend our position.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Conservative chaos continues. It truly beggars belief that just weeks after the Prime Minister negotiated the Windsor framework in February last year, he promptly brought forward immigration legislation that appears to have left Northern Ireland with immigration rules that are different from those for the rest of the UK. Concerns about the Illegal Migration Act 2023 were raised at the time by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as he has just pointed out; why did the Government choose to ignore his warnings? I do not believe that the Minister answered the questions that the right hon. Gentleman just put to him.
We on the Labour Benches are utterly committed to upholding both the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework in all their dimensions, but this Government appear to be more committed to their failing Illegal Migration Act. Can the Minister assure the House that nothing that the Government do will in any way compromise the Good Friday agreement or the Windsor framework?
For those who are understandably struggling to keep up with the never-ending stream of immigration legislation that has been flowing from this Government, the Illegal Migration Act was the second of three Bills, all of which had one goal in mind—sending asylum seekers to Rwanda—and all of which are completely failing on their own terms. It has been a shambles from start to finish. Meanwhile, we on the Labour Benches are clear about the problem that we face: large numbers of desperate asylum seekers are crossing continents, exploited by criminal smuggling gangs who operate routes across the English channel, and are being met by an incompetent and clueless Conservative Government who have lost control of our borders and are addicted to headline-chasing gimmicks.
In contrast, the Labour party would never have gone down the Rwanda rabbit hole. Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on Rwanda, we would introduce a new border security command, with extra resource and new powers to go after the criminal gangs. Instead of using expensive asylum hotels, we will deliver our backlog clearance plan, and will have a new returns unit to remove people with no right to be in the UK. I once again urge the Minister to stop flogging this dead horse of a Rwanda policy, and to instead adopt Labour’s pragmatic plan to stop the Tories’ small boats chaos and fix our broken asylum system.
Tom Pursglove
Different week, same rant. Week on week, we hear the same rant about the Opposition’s position, but they have no credible plan to stop the flow of people crossing the channel. I simply do not accept the shadow Minister’s characterisation of the situation. Let me be clear for him: yes, we will uphold our legal obligations—we are committed to that—but the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 does not engage the Good Friday agreement, including the rights chapter. Those rights seek to address long-standing, specific issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past, and do not extend to matters engaged by the Act. I should also reiterate for him, because perhaps he missed this, that we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
As for the Opposition Front Benchers’ very scant alternative for tackling illegal migration, which the shadow Minister today again proffered to the House, I can tell him that we have already doubled National Crime Agency funding for immigration and crime. We already have thousands of officials working on this matter in the migration and borders directorate. In practice, his policy means a migrant amnesty, and letting thousands of illegal migrants, who should not be here, stay in the UK indefinitely. He would end the Rwanda scheme—the Leader of the Opposition has been very clear that he would end that, come what may—but it is already working and deterring people from making crossings. The Opposition would allow tens of thousands of claims to be lodged from outside the United Kingdom, undoing all the progress we have made in addressing the asylum backlog. They would also do a deal with the European Union—one that will not stop the boats—taking 100,000 asylum seekers every year from EU countries. I do not think that is a credible offering to the country. The Opposition just do not get it. They are trying to take the public for fools. Fortunately, we have a plan, and we are getting on and delivering on it. We are delivering resources, and we will see our plan through.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend indicate the extent to which the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Windsor framework and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, as it relates to the sovereignty of the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, could have been worded sufficiently clearly and unambiguously to remove the grounds for this judgment, in line with the disapplication principles set out in paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court judgment on Rwanda from last November, which is extremely clear?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I refer him and all right hon. and hon. Members to the position that I have set out. The Government are clear that the will of Parliament has been expressed on these issues. The position is as I have set out, and we will robustly defend it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The SNP welcomes the judgment from the High Court of Belfast, and thanks the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the individual in the other case for taking this matter forward. It is important that these awful pieces of legislation are challenged. I note to the Minister that this judgment came from a domestic court, not the international courts that the Government seem so terribly afraid of and consistently run down. The court found that the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and with the European convention on human rights; sections 2, 5 and 6 of the 2023 Act lead to a diminution of rights. The court also found incompatibility between the 2023 Act and the Human Rights Act 1998 on the duty to remove, obligations to potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, and responsibilities to children and their best interests—all extremely serious matters that remain of concern.
As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, all this was entirely predictable. The Government were warned about the implications for the Good Friday agreement throughout proceedings on the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Can the Minister say why his Government failed to heed the warnings and expert advice? Why did they ignore the status of Northern Ireland, and what now for the applicability of the Rwanda Act in Northern Ireland?
My fellow Scottish MPs and I are disturbed by the fact that our constituents, neighbours and friends are not even afforded the same rights as those in Northern Ireland. What are the implications of that decision for the Union? Human rights should be for all of us.
Tom Pursglove
I can probably answer that question fairly rapidly. We fully understand the position of the Scottish National party, which has been consistently expressed during the passage of the various pieces of legislation. The SNP does not support the Government in our efforts to tackle illegal migration head-on. The position is as I have described; I will not give a running commentary on ongoing litigation, but we are determined to appeal this judgment. We are taking legal advice, and as I have said, I can be very clear that the judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July, or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Concerns have been expressed about migrants flocking to Northern Ireland to avoid deportation to Rwanda, but there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so. We are operationalising this policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the Chamber; I hope he is enjoying life back at the Home Office. In the decision, the judge found that section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the Windsor framework, must be read as meaning that Northern Ireland is effectively to be treated as part of the European Union. I believed the assurances given to me at the time, but is it not patently clear now that the Windsor framework has operated in a way that undermines our sovereignty and Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, and has fundamentally failed on its first contact with reality?
Tom Pursglove
I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to what I have said about our determination to appeal the judgment. As she knows from real experience, immigration is a reserved matter and policy should be applied consistently across the UK, as we have done consistently to date.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The European convention on human rights is not just a key part of the UK’s unwritten constitution, but fundamental to the Good Friday agreement. That is where the commitment to the vindication of rights flows from. Yes, Brexit and the provisions that have followed have underpinned those rights and have allowed for the pursuance of a remedy. Perhaps those who championed the Brexit project might step through the consequences of their actions better in future. I am glad that our region has additional protection, but the ruling is very clear: the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is not compatible with human rights, and the declaration of incompatibility has implications in all jurisdictions. Is it not time that the Government developed an actual strategy that focused on safe routes, targeting people-smuggling gangs and investing in efficient processing? Is it not time we had an actual plan, instead of this £400 million performance of cruelty?
Tom Pursglove
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Lady’s stance on Brexit, and I respectfully disagree with her interpretation and characterisation of the situation that we are discussing. We have seen over half a million people come to this country via safe and legal routes since 2015. We can all be enormously proud of that as a country, but there is a moral imperative to shut down the evil criminal gangs that are responsible for taking people’s money and bringing them across the channel in unseaworthy vessels, with no regard whatsoever for human life—for whether those people arrive safely.
We will do everything necessary within our power to put those evil criminal gangs out of business. To date, we have made progress through the plan that has been delivered, but this is the important next step in rendering the business model redundant. I urge the hon. Lady to rethink her position. It is not good enough to say, “It’s all too difficult,” and just allow unlimited numbers of people to make those very dangerous crossings, without having an alternative country to relocate people to when there is no prospect of removing them to their country of origin.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
We voted in a referendum to end the rule of EU law throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Given the muddle that the courts are creating, is not the only way out of this an urgent, short piece of legislation that asserts beyond doubt that we control our own borders?
Tom Pursglove
The Government believe that we have a legal basis for this. I recognise my right hon. Friend’s determination for us to get on and deliver on the Rwanda policy. That is precisely what we are doing, on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act at this stage, but when it comes to the IMA, we believe that we have a strong legal basis, and that is why we are appealing the judgment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, there are 90,000 of our fellow human beings who have arrived in the UK since March last year and are in limbo—their claims are not even being triaged—while they await a third country to take them. The Government know that most of these folks will turn out to be genuine refugees if their cases are ever assessed. They are nevertheless sat rotting at the taxpayer’s expense, vulnerable to exploitation and unable to move on. Even this Government admit that the majority will never go to Rwanda, so what is the Government’s plan for those 90,000 souls?
Tom Pursglove
We are clearly committed to commencing the Illegal Migration Act as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know about the work that has gone on in the Home Office over the last year or so that has dramatically improved asylum decision-making productivity—all efforts that would be out of the window, were those on the Opposition Front Bench to form a Government. We will take appropriate decisions on individual cohorts; I will not get into that on the Floor of the House today—
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman keeps chuntering from a sedentary position, but the fact is that we take appropriate cohort-related decisions. The message must be very clear that people should not be coming to the United Kingdom via perilous journeys on small boats. That is not an acceptable position to be advocating. We will not advocate that position, and will continue to take steps to address it. The message should go out very clearly to anyone thinking of getting in a small boat: don’t do it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Many in Northern Ireland will want to understand the practical implications of this court case. If, as some expect, it means that Northern Ireland has become a more attractive place for someone who has arrived in Britain on a small boat, what are the Government doing to investigate, plan for and manage that, and to ensure that it does not have cost implications for the Northern Ireland Executive or local authorities in Northern Ireland?
Tom Pursglove
What I can say to my right hon. Friend, who, of course, takes a real interest in all matters Northern Ireland, is that we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on a UK-wide basis. The legal foundation for that is the Nationality and Borders Act. As I said earlier, there is no benefit to anybody who thinks that going to Northern Ireland will lead to their not being in scope for relocation to Rwanda. That is not the case. The position is clear, and we are getting on and operationalising the policy using the legal footing that is already available to us.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government can make as many appeals, promises from the Dispatch Box, and agreements about safeguarding the Union as they want, but the fact remains that because of the pathetic handover of Northern Ireland to the European Union, EU law now extends to and must be applied in Northern Ireland, as the judge made clear yesterday. The result is that we have another hole in the Government’s immigration policy—a national immigration policy now dictated by the EU. Northern Ireland will become a back door in the United Kingdom, and that will hasten the day when we have people controls, as well as goods controls, between Northern Ireland and GB. Does the Minister recognise that unless we remove the source of the problem—namely, the commitments in the withdrawal agreement—it will continue?
Tom Pursglove
There is no merit whatsoever in the suggestion that the UK would hand Northern Ireland over to the European Union. On the matter that we are debating today, the judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or about the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We continue to work to get regular flights off to Rwanda in the coming weeks, and nothing will distract us from that or from delivering to the timetable that I set out. We must start the flights to stop the boats. I have been consistently clear that the commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration. We will take all steps to defend that position, including through appeal—those are the words of the Prime Minister. As I say, we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on a UK-wide basis, and we will see through the commitments that we have made.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On the Windsor framework, we told you so. On the judgment itself, legally, all roads lead not to Rome but, in this case, to Strasbourg and the European convention on human rights. The convention was drafted for perfectly honourable reasons in the aftermath of the horror of the second world war, but that was over 70 years ago. It has now clearly been overtaken by events and international migration flows. Has not the time now come for a Conservative Government to include in our election manifesto a clear commitment to seeking to negotiate that convention with our European partners, and, should those negotiations fail, to leave it? If we are not prepared to walk away, they will never take us seriously.
Tom Pursglove
I refer my right hon. Friend to the Government’s stance on the legal position in relation to the Illegal Migration Act. I would also say that for illegal migrants, all roads lead to Rwanda, and for the people smugglers responsible for that evil criminality, all roads lead to prison.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I strongly welcome the logical and inevitable judgment from the High Court of Northern Ireland. If the Government want to have a national immigration policy, they must repeal the Illegal Migration Act, repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act, and have a human-rights compliant policy. Back in 1998, the Governments of the UK and Ireland made the solemn pledge to the people of Northern Ireland that the rights of everyone residing in the community would be protected. Can the Minister give a cast-iron assurance that under no circumstances will article 2 of the Windsor framework, or the Good Friday agreement, be unpicked in the pursuit of this rabbit hole of a Rwanda plan?
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the position that I have set out in relation to the Good Friday agreement. I will not give a running commentary about the litigation, which is, as he will appreciate, ongoing. I absolutely and definitively disagree with him on the utility or sense in repealing the various pieces of illegal migration legislation that he is so vehemently against. I respectfully disagree with him on that. That legislation is helping us to make the progress that we need to put those criminal gangs out of business and ultimately save lives in the channel. I do not think that there is anything more serious for a Government than that. We place it front and centre in the work that we are doing.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is clear to me that Northern Ireland has just as much right as anywhere else in the UK to have a deterrent to illegal migration, so aspects of this concern me. A few weeks ago, the Irish Government were saying that they should be able to return some illegal migrants who may have gone from the UK to the Republic of Ireland. Does the Minister think that the Irish Government would be better off taking that up with France? If the French took the return of illegal migrants who have entered our country, we would probably not have this problem in the first place.
Tom Pursglove
As I said from the Dispatch Box last week, the position is very clear: we are not willing to have that relationship with the Irish Government and take the return of illegal migrants. That would need to be progressed at an EU level. We think that the European Union should take back those illegal migrants. I think that goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Thus far, the Minister has not taken the opportunity to respond to the query from my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) about why the Government declined the offer made from the DUP Benches, which would have avoided the judgment that we have heard about. Will he do so now? He has indicated that the Government plan to appeal, but if the appeal fails, what then?
Tom Pursglove
I do not think it wise to speculate on hypothetical situations. We are determined that there is a strong legislative basis, and we will defend it through the appeal. As for debates that have been and gone, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was not the Minister at that time, but it is fair to say that the record will speak for itself on the debates that were had.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
We need only look at the situation in Dublin to see what happens when illegal migration becomes an issue and is not handled correctly, and to understand the strength of pursuing our Rwanda policy. Although that policy is being dismissed by some, it is interesting that, as I am sure the Minister has noticed, others across Europe are starting to look to it for a solution to this question. The question, “If not Rwanda, where do you want to remove people to?” has never been answered by Labour.
In the light of the judgment, can the Minister reassure me on a couple of points? First, will the UK remain the UK border in terms of migration policy, so that there is no prospect of having any form of checks on people between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which would effectively mean a border within the United Kingdom? Secondly, will the operation of the Rwanda plan be based on, as he said, the Nationality and Borders Act and on the recently passed legislation—the one-stop shop and the child age assessments—which were vital in getting a grip on this issue? Is the plan being taken forward on that basis rather than on the basis of the Illegal Migration Act, which was the core point from this judgment?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend always speaks with authority when it comes to these issues, and he has extensive experience, having been a Minister in the Home Office. I can absolutely say that we will continue to apply migration policy on a UK-wide basis; the UK border will remain that. He is right to highlight the Nationality and Borders Act, and he should be proud of the efforts that he took forward in Government to help deliver it. Labour Members consistently opposed it. In answer to his question about where Labour would send people, which I know he asked a few weeks ago, we are still none the wiser. The truth is that the basis upon which we are able to advance the policy at this stage is the Nationality and Borders Act. He can be confident in that basis. We are getting on and delivering on it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Of course, this judgment has UK-wide relevance because of the declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act. In our reports on the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda policy, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has repeatedly warned that many aspects of the Government’s asylum policy breach the Human Rights Act. That was not just our view, but the weight of the expert evidence that we heard; in fact, those with legal expertise who disagreed with our findings were decidedly thin on the ground. This judgment vindicates our position that on a number of fronts, the Government’s asylum policy breaches the Human Rights Act, particularly as regards the duty to remove. As such, will the Minister confirm that the Government will respect the rule of law and not take any steps to deport anyone under the Rwanda scheme until the relevant avenues of appeal in this case are exhausted and it is clarified that such removals would be lawful?
Tom Pursglove
I know that the hon. and learned Lady is vehemently opposed to the Government’s position on tackling illegal migration. I believe that the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), will be in front of her Committee tomorrow, and I have no doubt that she will want to ask those questions of him. To go back to the thrust of her question, though, the basis upon which we are facilitating relocations to Rwanda at this stage is that of the Nationality and Borders Act, which is not relevant to the Illegal Migration Act judgment that we are dealing with today.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
We were already aware that the Northern Ireland protocol or Windsor framework—whichever one prefers to call it—had resulted in a customs border in the Irish sea. If this judgment stands, it now appears to be the case that it has also destroyed the ability of the United Kingdom Government to determine who should remain within our own borders. Does my hon. Friend not agree, therefore, that the framework has been proven to be inimical to British sovereignty and should be renegotiated, or failing that —as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir John Redwood) has suggested—should be disapplied by legislation of this Parliament?
Tom Pursglove
I would not accept that characterisation. As I have confirmed for the House a number of times, we are taking forward the Rwanda partnership on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act—that is the legal footing on which we are advancing the policy at this stage. I am confident in that legal foundation, and we will appeal this judgment, which relates very specifically to the Illegal Migration Act.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
What else are the Government not telling us about where the EU has overreach into Northern Ireland, and where people in Northern Ireland are once again in limbo between two regulatory entities? Will the Secretary of State and the Government do the right thing and stop stringing the people of Northern Ireland along by simply appealing the decision, and will the Secretary of State commit to legislate to get rid of the EU supremacy on human rights contained in article 2 of the Windsor framework?
Tom Pursglove
Article 2 of the Windsor framework ensures that there is no diminution of rights under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have been consistently clear that the commitments in the Good Friday agreement should be implemented as they were always intended, not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration. Rightly, we will take all steps to defend that position, including through our appeal.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I think we all sympathise with the Minister for having to take a line that is manifestly absurd. Why is it that the Government are not going to directly legislate to deal with this situation? The legislation is defective, and if we go to appeal and that appeal is rejected, we will have lost a lot more time. Why do we not act now to legislate and sort out this mess?
Tom Pursglove
As I think my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are currently taking legal advice in relation to this judgment. It would not be right to give a running commentary on the substance of that legal advice, and as he knows, as a Minister, I am not in a position to disclose that advice in any event. We will robustly defend our position, but the outcome that my hon. Friend wishes to see—the operationalisation of the Rwanda policy to facilitate these relocations—has its legislative basis in the Nationality and Borders Act. The good news is that he was one of the colleagues who was in the Division Lobby supporting that Act, something that I think his constituents would welcome.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Government were repeatedly warned about the pitfalls of the Windsor framework, and have been repeatedly warned and advised about the deficiencies of the Rwanda legislation. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that, as a result of the Government’s sloppy and defective drafting of legislation, the lawyers are not the only winners, as always?
Tom Pursglove
We are not going to be thwarted in our efforts to ensure that people are relocated to Rwanda, with the ultimate aim of putting out of business the evil criminal gangs responsible for that heinous trade that puts lives at risk and exploits people for their money. There is a legal basis upon which we are taking the policy forward immediately, and people are being detained for the purposes of relocation, caseworkers are working on individual cases, and arrangements are in place to facilitate the flights. That is where our focus and energies are at this present time, but we are also appealing on the issue of the Illegal Migration Act.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister has already confirmed that the Government will appeal against the Belfast High Court judgment and that our commitment to the Belfast agreement is unwavering, so the substantive issue is the plan to process asylum seekers’ applications in Rwanda, which Opposition Front Benchers continue to say should not, could not and will not work. Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only are they wrong on all three of those points, but events in Ireland have shown how effective a deterrent this policy is going to prove? Italy, France, Denmark and—I think—the political party of the EU President have already said that it sets a very interesting precedent, one that they will be looking to pursue themselves.
Tom Pursglove
Opposition Front Benchers are invariably wrong when it comes to these issues. My hon. Friend is right to touch on the fact that although back in 2022 we were at the forefront in announcing the Rwanda partnership, others are now following us. As a Government, we recognise and have consistently said that this is a novel approach to tackling the issue, but such challenges require novel solutions, and it is right that we look at novel ways of tackling these migratory flows that are organised and facilitated by evil criminality—the Home Secretary is leading that effort internationally, as well. My hon. Friend’s point is becoming ever more relevant; in fact, only this morning, I saw additional reports of other countries exploring these sorts of arrangements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Belfast City Council has the second highest number of asylum seekers in all of the United Kingdom; that indicates how important this issue is for us in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that there is still freedom of movement within the United Kingdom and that subsequently, under the policy of dispersal, we will be able to move any asylum seekers to the GB mainland to be directed, determined and dealt with as this Government see fit? Can he also confirm that this court judgment will not preclude Northern Ireland from holding its constitutional and legal position within the United Kingdom until consent given through a border poll determines otherwise, which is the very foundation of the Good Friday agreement?
Tom Pursglove
There are various technical aspects bound up in that question. If I may, I will take that series of points away and provide the hon. Gentleman with a written response, but what I can say in top-line terms is that when it comes to the application of the Rwanda policy, we are delivering it on a UK-wide basis.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have sat and listened to all the questions from across the House, so as I am asking the last one, can I say to the Minister that my constituents and I are very worried about immigration, and that if the Rwanda policy that this House has decided to go ahead with works, that should happen and it should be a deterrent? However, what is obvious across the House today is that there is a concern about the Union. This country is about a union of countries together, so I ask the Minister to make sure that all Government Departments understand the concern of colleagues from Northern Ireland, and from across the House, to protect the Union at all costs.
Tom Pursglove
This Government will always, always uphold the Union both in letter and in spirit. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this issue to his constituents in Hemel Hempstead and the importance of tackling illegal migration head-on. He can be absolutely assured that Home Office Ministers take our responsibilities to the Union incredibly seriously. The fact that I am joined on the Front Bench by Northern Ireland Office colleagues for this urgent question is very welcome. It provides an opportunity to really demonstrate the fact that we do work as one Government on this issue. It is incumbent on all Ministers to uphold the Union and its importance to our great country in every sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
International Health Regulations
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if she will make a statement on the ongoing negotiations on the World Health Organisation pandemic agreement and amendments to the international health regulations ahead of any votes at the World Health Assembly that starts next week.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this urgent question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House. I want to start by making three promises. First, the Government will only accept the accord and targeted amendments to the international health regulations if they are firmly in the United Kingdom’s national interest, and no text has yet been agreed. We will only accept the accord and amendments by the World Health Assembly and adopt them if it is firmly in the UK’s national interest to do so. Secondly, this Government will only sign up to measures that respect our national sovereignty. Thirdly, under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns. That would be unthinkable and has never been proposed. Protecting our sovereignty is a British red line.
Let me now dispel three myths about the negotiations. First, there is the myth that the negotiations are being led by the WHO. They are not being led by the WHO; they are entirely led by member states. Secondly, there is the idea that we would give away a fifth of our vaccines in the next pandemic. That is simply not true. Of course, we are a generous country and companies may make their own choices to donate vaccines, but that would be and should be entirely their decision. Countries are discussing a voluntary mechanism to which UK businesses could sign up, if they wish, to share vaccines in return for information they may need to develop their products.
The third point is about transparency. This is a point I take extremely seriously, as one who campaigned so hard for this Parliament’s sovereignty. It is not common practice for the Government to give an update on live negotiations, but I met some interested parliamentarians last week to discuss their concerns. I also had the pleasure of leading a Westminster Hall debate in December on these negotiations, which was attended by my hon. Friend and many others, and I will continue to meet him and other concerned parliamentarians as we act in the national interest. Effective agreements can help us to deliver smarter surveillance, swifter pathogen and data sharing, and faster development of pandemic vaccines, tests and treatments that would save lives and protect people both in the UK and around the world.
Danny Kruger
Can I say how much I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has just made? I want to acknowledge the good work that he and indeed his predecessors have been doing in Government ahead of the World Health Assembly that meets next week. I am very pleased to hear the commitments he has just made.
My concern is not with the Government’s position, but with the WHO itself. I appreciate the Minister’s point that member states are leading on these proposals, which is worrying in itself, but we know what the real agenda of the WHO is from the drafts that have been submitted in recent months. It wants to have binding powers over national Governments to introduce all sorts of restrictive measures on our citizens; it wants to be able to direct the health budgets of member states; and it wants to introduce global digital health passports and other measures.
The WHO is an organisation that aspires, in words that are still in the draft treaty, to be
“the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”.
I appreciate that no text has yet been agreed, which is why it is important that we have a debate, but the proposals in the latest draft published last month are concerning enough. They require national Governments to agree to a whole series of commitments, which will be binding under international law if the UK signs up to them. These cover surveillance of the health of the population, commitments on funding both in the UK and abroad, emergency authorisation of new vaccines or speeded up authorisation processes, giving some vaccines to the WHO to distribute, potentially authorising national Governments to introduce the compulsory vaccination of travellers, and giving very wide discretion to the director general of the WHO to act on his own initiative.
The Government still have the opportunity to oppose the treaty and the regulations as they are currently drafted, and I appreciate that we are waiting to see the final text in the coming days, but can I ask the Minister to clarify very explicitly from the Dispatch Box what the Government’s red lines are? I heard what he said, but could he go a little further on the detail of what he means? Will the Government oppose any text that binds this or a future Government in how they respond to health threats? Finally and crucially, will the Government comply with the CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—requirement to put the treaty to a ratification vote in Parliament?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he and other parliamentarians have engaged with this subject matter and the challenges it presents. As I said in my opening remarks, no text has yet been agreed. I set out some of our negotiating red lines, and I am happy to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the current text is not acceptable to us. Therefore, unless the current text is changed and refined, we will not be signing up to it.
My hon. Friend asks how the treaty will be ratified if we reach a position to which the UK Government could agree. The UK treaty-making process means that the accord is of course negotiated and agreed by the Government. As he will know, Parliament plays an important part in scrutinising treaties under the CRaG process and determining how international obligations should be reflected domestically. However, it is important to remember that, because the exact form of the accord has not yet been agreed, the parliamentary adoption process will depend on under which article of the WHO constitution the accord is adopted.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
This country has a role and a responsibility in protecting global health. It is a part we played during the covid pandemic. British science stood tall on the world stage, and our country donated 84 million vaccine doses to help vaccinate the world. We learned from the omicron variant that, when it comes to global pandemics, none of us is safe until all of us are safe. We also benefited from researchers around the world sharing early knowledge about covid-19, collaboration that was crucial in protecting British people and ultimately in developing the vaccine. However, there is a clear principle when it comes to national security. It is the same one we follow when we get on to an aeroplane: we apply our own oxygen mask before we help others apply theirs. The Minister says the draft text is not acceptable, and I want to be clear that a Labour Government will not sign anything that would leave our population unprotected in the face of a novel disease.
We are debating a treaty that is still being negotiated by member states, and none of us knows the final content or wording, so can the Minister reconfirm for the House that the Government will not sign up to anything that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures? Has he consulted the UK’s life sciences sector ahead of these negotiations, and what conversations has he had with international counterparts and our allies about this treaty and our joint pandemic preparedness? As we work with colleagues around the world to bolster our efforts to tackle novel threats, it is vital that we get the balance right between sharing knowledge and protecting intellectual property, so can he set out his approach to any requirements for time-limited waivers of intellectual property related to vaccines and therapeutics in the event of a global disease outbreak? Finally, it is vital that we are led by science and evidence when tackling the threat of global disease epidemics, so can the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to tackle misinformation about pandemics and vaccines?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. I confirm that we are firmly fighting in Britain’s interests for an accord and strengthened international health regulations that fully respect national sovereignty but can save lives and protect people both in the UK and around the world. They have to fully respect national sovereignty, and that is at the heart of our negotiating position. It will therefore always be up to nation states to decide what is implemented within their own borders.
Just to answer a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, yes, I have met representatives of the life sciences sector to discuss this and some of the specific proposals—the last meeting we had was last week. With regard to dealing with international counterparts, I will be attending the World Health Assembly in Geneva myself.
My final point is that the hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to what this country did globally during the pandemic. Of course, in 2021 we used the G7 presidency to mobilise G7 countries to donate surplus vaccines, and by May 2022 the G7 had donated 1.18 billion doses against the target of 870 million. The UK alone donated over 80 million doses, benefiting 40 countries.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
We all want better co-ordination in the face of any future pandemic risk, but it is also clear that the WHO wants supranational powers. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the UK Government will not accept any obligation that requires the UK to legislate to implement any element of the WHO treaty into UK law?
Andrew Stephenson
At the moment we do not envisage any proposal that would require changes to domestic law, and it is highly unlikely that any proposals will come forward in that shape or form. I have some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says: most organisations such as the WHO will always look to expand their remit, and look to gain more power in order to co-ordinate things. But these negotiations are being led by member states and sovereignty is a key part of the negotiating position of the vast majority of the countries involved. It is not just the UK arguing for this; countries around the world are arguing that this needs to be a high-level agreement that helps co-ordination and information-sharing but in no way ties countries’ hands in how we respond domestically to any future pandemic.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We cannot have a repeat of what the WHO called the catastrophic failure of the international community to ensure that covid-19 was fought everywhere with all of our abilities. It will require give and take, with give on the part of OECD countries commensurate with our comparative economic strength and population health. Although there may be disagreements across the House, I think we all agree that pandemics should be fought on an international basis and that other countries should be assisted, where we have the strength and ability to do that. Despite that level of agreement, there has been a persistent barrage of misinformation and disinformation, not least hitting our own inboxes. As negotiations on this proceed, what steps will the UK Government be taking to ensure that the public understand what the treaty will do and to tackle and robustly rebut the misinformation and disinformation that is being spread, particularly about this treaty?
Andrew Stephenson
The Scottish National party spokeswoman makes a very important point. There has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation, but that is in part the result of the transparency on all the amendments being published on the WHO website, for example, as well as various other information, which has allowed people to think that that is suddenly the kind of text that would be agreed. We need to be clear that no text whatsoever has been agreed; the negotiations continue. I think most people in this House, and hopefully outside, would recognise that the working draft text most recently published on the WHO website is a significant improvement on the initial drafts. I think we all share an ambition that we will get to a text that can be agreed, but it has to put national interests and national sovereignty at its heart. I will therefore do my best to ensure that the House is kept updated as further iterations of the text emerge—the latest version was published on the WHO website on 17 April.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
As the Health Minister who represented the UK at last year’s World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly, I stood at that Dispatch Box and confirmed that we would not sign up to any IHR amendment or any other instrument that would compromise the UK’s ability to make domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that His Majesty’s Government’s position on this remains unchanged and resolute?
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to my predecessor for the work he did. Let me reiterate that the UK Government have made it clear that we will not sign up to any accord or any changes in the international health regulations that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as domestic immunisation programmes or lockdowns.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that the WHO was slow to react to SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—was slow to react to the Ebola crisis, was slow to react to covid-19, and steadfastly refused to criticise in any way the Chinese regime throughout that period? That being the case, will he confirm again from the Dispatch Box that no outside organisation will ever be able to take any decision to do with the internal health and wellbeing of citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Andrew Stephenson
One of the reasons why the WHO has in the past been slow to respond, and why it might be slow in future, is that it is a member state-led organisation governed by the World Health Assembly, which comprises 194 member states operating under the WHO constitution. Any decisions made by the WHO have to be agreed by all member states, including the UK, beforehand, and that does somewhat tie its hands. However, we and many like-minded countries believe that all these decisions are best made domestically depending on the domestic situation. The domestic situation in the UK will be radically different in any future pandemic from the domestic situation in other countries around the world. We have to work collaboratively on things like the sharing of data, but there are many other areas where it is 100 % right that decisions are made in this country by our Government.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I welcome confirmation from my right hon. Friend that the Government do not consider the current drafting of the proposed treaty to be acceptable; it is good to have that on the record. On a principles-led basis, I do not believe it is in the UK’s national interest to accede to this. Anything that compromises our ability to make sovereign choices is profoundly unwelcome. Can the Minister give a commitment that, regardless of the technicalities of the precise form that any treaty may finally emerge in, if the UK does decide to accede to this treaty, we will have a vote in this House? We can see, certainly on this side of the House—there is no presence on the Labour Benches—that there are real reservations about what this will mean in practice for our ability to make the right choices for our people.
Andrew Stephenson
I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes. As I said in answer to an earlier question, because we do not know the exact form that the accord will take, at the moment it is very hard to say what the parliamentary procedure that flows out of it will be, but I certainly will provide any opportunity I can to facilitate as much debate as possible. He and I agree on many things, but here I would just say that, having looked at the detail, I genuinely believe that agreeing a meaningful accord is firmly in the UK’s national interest.
This accord is an opportunity to enhance UK health, economic and national security. An effective accord will improve disease surveillance and prevention by making sure that globally we have the information we need to raise the alarm early. It strengthens research and development to help stop pandemics in their tracks and enables a better co-ordinated global response to pandemics, including getting vaccines, treatments and tests rapidly to where they are needed most.
I genuinely believe that there is a window of opportunity here to get an accord that is in the UK’s national interest. We are not there yet—the current text is unacceptable—but we will keep negotiating, because I believe there is a window of opportunity here to agree something that is genuinely in the UK’s national interest. But if we cannot agree that, we will not sign it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Public health is devolved in the context of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, how often does the Minister engage with the devolved Governments on the UK Government’s negotiating positions in relation to these matters?
Andrew Stephenson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, international treaties are a matter for the UK Government, and therefore this is being negotiated by the UK Government. I was appointed as a Minister in the Department of Health back in November, but I am happy to reassure him that I do not see myself as purely the Minister for Health in England—I visited Wales very early on to meet some of the outstanding life sciences companies there, which are developing products that will benefit patients across the entire UK; I visited Northern Ireland to see some of the great universities and outstanding businesses there; and I also visited Scotland to meet Michael Matheson, the then Scottish Health Secretary, and also the University of Edinburgh and various other outstanding universities and businesses. So I very much see the Union, and the impact that everything has on the whole United Kingdom, as being central to these negotiations.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on securing this urgent question? I also congratulate those on the Government Benches—I note that there is no one on the Opposition Benches, apart from the shadow Minister—for addressing the question of whether any meaningful accord is possible. Supranationality has to be out, as I have said on countless occasions, when it is not in our national interest. Sovereignty has to prevail. I remind the Minister of the regulation brought in by the EU at the time of covid, which had to be abandoned because we put our foot down and said that we would not accept its restrictions on our ability to produce the vaccine. That is a good example. Will he please follow it and make sure we do not have any weasel words?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate and pertinent point. Throughout the negotiations the UK has made it clear—and we will continue to do so—that we will not sign up to any accord that fails to meet our global health and UK health security priorities. Likewise, the UK would not sign up to an accord that cedes sovereignty to the WHO over domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as immunisation programmes or lockdowns. Any necessary or appropriate changes to domestic legislation or new domestic legislation would be made through the usual parliamentary process. However, because we do not yet know the exact details of the accord, I cannot be any clearer on how exactly Parliament will get to scrutinise the accord, if we get to an agreement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The treaty is not just about data sharing and information gathering; it is also about setting up a system of pandemic management under the leadership of the WHO. It has a poor history of management and decision making. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will not accept any surrendering of UK powers to an international body that can interfere with decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people here in the United Kingdom? I listened to his response about devolved Governments, and it seems there has not been much discussion with the devolved Administrations. He will not even guarantee a vote in this House on such an important issue. Can he guarantee that we will not undemocratically hand over democratic control to a non-democratic body?
Andrew Stephenson
We will not be handing over any kind of control over what we do domestically; national sovereignty is a clear red line, as I made clear in my opening remarks. It is important to recognise that there are challenges with these things, which are being negotiated within the existing international health regulations. The director general of the World Health Organisation already has the ability to declare a public health event of international concern and issue temporary recommendations that provide non-binding guidance to member states. We believe that we need to stay in a situation where the World Health Organisation has an important convening role internationally to discuss issues, but the domestic response to any future pandemic is for domestic Governments to make. Anything that impinges on UK national sovereignty will therefore be unacceptable to us.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for his hard work and for taking the time last week to meet me and colleagues to discuss the terms of this treaty. He will know that I am profoundly sceptical about the World Health Organisation’s ability to manage a global pandemic, in the light of serious errors of judgment, poor leadership and, I am afraid, well-chronicled conflicts of interest that have subsequently emerged. Of course we can help poorer countries and collaborate with other nations, but under no circumstances must we surrender our sovereignty or sign up to a lockdown charter. I hear what he says about how the text currently on the table does not bind our hands, but he will know, as many of us do, that in the heat of an emergency during a real pandemic, irresistible pressure will mount on a Government to make decisions that may well turn out to be wholly harmful, as we found, and the wrong decisions for the good of the country. Will he agree that, fundamentally, to coin a phrase, no pandemic treaty is better than a bad pandemic treaty?
Andrew Stephenson
I 100% agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that no treaty is better than a bad treaty. However, if we scroll back to why this process was originally started, it was the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip who led the international calls for this accord. The reason behind it is that we believe that commitments on stronger international collaboration and co-operation on global health are crucial to securing the UK’s health and economic security. However, domestic decisions still have to be left to sovereign nation states to take the right decisions for their countries. I think there is a lot of agreement between my right hon. and learned Friend and me, and I thank her once again for engaging in such constructive fashion and for meeting me to express her and other parliamentarians’ views.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I concur that any new treaty has to be right for the UK. Will the Minister reflect on the meaning of the word “pandemic”, which suggests an element of international spread of disease or a global problem? For the sake of balance in this urgent question, will he emphasise the importance of the UK working collaboratively on an intergovernmental basis with others in how they react to pandemics with restrictions on travel and global vaccine equity? As long as the world is safe, the UK is also safe.
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I talked about the leadership shown by the UK Government when we had the G7 presidency back in 2021. In addition to the UK supplying vaccines around the world, as of 2022, an estimated 2.7 million covid-19 deaths had been prevented due to the COVAX-supported vaccination programmes in different countries around the world. We need to work internationally. Sharing data can head off future pandemics, and a good accord would deliver the data sharing and collaboration that can prevent future health emergencies, rather than tie the hands of domestic Governments in responding appropriately to such emergencies.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
May I say on behalf of the volunteers and others in the vaccination centres around the country during the pandemic, which I had the honour of working in, that the key is that vaccines are available to us before we give them to anyone else in the world? I am listening to what the Minister is saying, but does he agree that collaboration does not mean compulsion in any way or form?
Andrew Stephenson
As a volunteer vaccinator during the pandemic, I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to look after our own people—our own citizens; the people we are elected to represent—first. We are investing heavily in the British life sciences sector to ensure that it is even more prepared for any future pandemic. We are ensuring that we have more domestic manufacturing capability, so that we can have more vaccines ourselves without being reliant on other countries. However, at the point where a new pandemic is emerging in a part of a world far from our shores, we still need to ensure that the data—particularly the pathogen data—is shared early, so that world-beating British companies, whether the tiny life sciences start-ups or the big pharmaceutical companies, can use it to produce the drugs that will hopefully ensure that it does not become a full-blown pandemic and does not cost as many lives as the last one.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on his timing of this important urgent question. Repeatedly during this session, the Minister has stated that we do not really know what shape the pandemic agreement, accord or treaty will take. Under paragraph 2 of article 55 of the international health regulations, all member states must have a full draft of the amendments to treaties to be voted on four months in advance. Despite the fact that the WHO is breaking its own rules, it is insisting on moving forward with the votes in Geneva on 27 May on the pandemic treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations. Will the Minister join me and many others in calling for a deferment of those votes until this House and others around the world have had a chance to examine these important details?
Andrew Stephenson
No, because there is no text that has been agreed. This has been evolving: we have seen new amendments and new, revised drafts. The latest negotiations on the accord took place on 29 April to 10 May and the next round of negotiations will take place on 16 and 17 May and continue on 20 to 25 May, leading up to the World Health Assembly meeting taking place in Geneva on 27 May to 1 June. There has been a lot of progress in getting a text that is more agreeable to a majority of member states, but we are still some way off getting to a text that can be agreed. We are hoping for significant changes in the coming days, and I will do my best to keep the House updated.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I firmly tell the Minister that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I do not trust bureaucracies, and I certainly do not trust this one. Judging by the way in which it behaved last time, with its instinct to lock us all down—we have seen huge damage from that to every part of our national infrastructure—I suspect that the tendency will be to do the same again, to our detriment. Will the Minister reassure me—he has done so already, but I want to hear it again—that he will, in effect, not sign anything? We do not need to sign something to collaborate with other nations for their good as well as for the good of our own country.
Andrew Stephenson
I happily reassure my hon. Friend that national sovereignty comes first. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that we get an accord that is agreeable, but if the accord would undermine our sovereignty and our ability to act domestically in any way, we will simply not sign it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who have voiced grave concerns about the powers and rights requested and required by this unelected body. While we may support some of the work carried out to help developing countries, I will not sign away the sovereignty of this nation. Our participation in the WHO should not come with a prerequisite of signing up to these demands. Further, if that is the case, we should no longer be a participating member of the WHO.
Andrew Stephenson
Just to reiterate my point, the Government will only accept the accord and targeted amendments to the international health regulations if they are firmly in the United Kingdom’s national interest, and no text has yet been agreed. We continue the negotiations, and I will do my best to keep right hon. and hon. Members as informed as I can without providing a running commentary on the negotiations, but I genuinely believe that we can get to a position where there is an accord that is in the UK national interest.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister then publish the amendments that the Government are seeking? He says, rightly, that he needs a very different treaty from the one that we see on offer. He needs to persuade other nations, so he should be making a public case; we would then not be so suspicious. There must be no new legal requirement imposed on the United Kingdom.
Andrew Stephenson
We do not envisage any new legal requirements being imposed on the United Kingdom, and any changes to our domestic ability to react to any future pandemic would be unacceptable and cross one of our red lines. In this urgent question and in the Westminster Hall debate, which I know my right hon. Friend also participated in, I was as clear as I could be on the UK’s red lines in these negotiations. We have been up front with both Parliament and our international partners in saying that the current text is not agreeable to us, and we are seeking significant changes if we are to reach an accord that will be signed by the United Kingdom.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I, too, participated in that Westminster Hall debate. For the record, this urgent question has been running for well over half an hour, during which not a single Labour Back Bencher has been present in the Chamber, let alone asked a question, even though we are discussing, in effect, the medical sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
As there are a lot of Conservatives in the Chamber, may I say to the Minister that we would probably be better not signing this treaty at all? That is not least because many of us have concerns about malign influences on the WHO. If we were to sign it, although I would rather that we did not, will the Minister give us a cast-iron commitment that we will have a vote—dare I say, a meaningful vote—on it in this House before it comes into force?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his powerful point, which I think once again underlines that you can only trust the Conservatives with the NHS. As I have said in answer to a couple of questions, unfortunately, because we do not know the form that the treaty will take, it is hard to set out the parliamentary process for its adoption. There are different parliamentary processes depending on the form that it takes. I make the personal commitment to him that I will do everything that I can to engage the House, but at this point I cannot specify the procedure and processes that would be followed in the House or whether there would be a vote.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for securing the urgent question and Mr Speaker for granting it.
The World Health Organisation is a failing, mega-expensive, unelected, unaccountable supranational body, which is increasingly under the influence of the global elite, funded by a small number of non-state actors, and China is a malign influence over it. Surely the initial drafts of this treaty must have set alarm bells ringing even in Whitehall at this attempted power grab. May I urge the Minister not to sign the treaty? We can have enhanced co-operation and collaboration to counter future pandemics without legally binding commitments.
Andrew Stephenson
I would argue that WHO membership gives the UK a seat at the table in global health discussions, allowing us to amplify UK priorities at an international level. There are 194 member states. If we can agree a high-level treaty that does not impinge on our national sovereignty via the negotiation between the 194 member states, I think that will be a good outcome, and a better outcome than trying to negotiate individual agreements with all 194 member states.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that it is hardly surprising that a debate that largely hinges on national sovereignty is of little interest to the Labour party.
The principle of national democracy is incredibly important to me, many of my constituents and other people in this place. I am absolutely pro-collaboration, but that needs to be done through the national principle, and nothing must be done that undermines the national principle. This debate keeps on returning—we thought that it would end with Brexit, but it did not; it is now going on with the European convention on human rights and the WHO. Will the Minister confirm that, yes, we are pro-collaboration and co-operation, but that when it comes to national sovereignty we should always oppose supranationalism and the worst excesses of globalism?
Andrew Stephenson
The UK Government have been clear that we will not sign up to an accord or any international health regulation amendments that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as domestic immunisation programmes or lockdowns. Respecting national sovereignty rights is a distinct principle in the current draft of the accord, and respecting the sovereign rights of states to adopt, legislate and implement legislation within their jurisdictions remains a distinct principle in the drafted amendments to the IHR. I genuinely believe that there is a window of opportunity to negotiate an accord that is in the UK national interest as well as in the global interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Point of Order
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and Members across the House will share my disappointment that the Secretary of State made a great announcement about the construction of six new warships at Lancaster House to a group of journalists, rather than in this place. All our constituents would have liked MPs to have had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about that announcement. What advice do you have for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure proper scrutiny of this sort of decision, important as it is to our national security?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. Mr Speaker and I have not had any indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement about this matter, but I note that the “Ministerial Code” says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
I know that Mr Speaker is keen that that should be implemented. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have made a note of the points raised and will report back.
Bathing Waters (Monitoring and Reporting)
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bathing Waters (Monitoring and Reporting) Bill 2023-24 View all Bathing Waters (Monitoring and Reporting) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about monitoring and reporting of water quality in bathing water sites in coastal areas; and for connected purposes.
I am proud to represent some of the finest and cleanest beaches in the world. North Devon is home to the UK’s only world surf reserve, and the only cold water surf reserve in the world. I must declare an interest as I surf—badly—and was in last weekend. I am proud of this Government’s work to take the monitoring of storm overflows from just 6% in 2010 to 100% last year. However, this data is abused along our coastlines and often scares people out of the water. We know that something comes out of a pipe, but we have no idea what it contains.
The Bill seeks to expedite the testing of what is in an overflow pipe, and to define what is and what is not raw sewage. Despite asking numerous questions of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am still unable to explain to anyone how an overflow pipe that contains at least 95% rainwater can still be defined as raw sewage. Legal definitions online are clear that raw sewage should consist primarily of human faeces and water. It is not the water where the bacteria hang out—clearly, the more water, the more diluted. My Bill relates to bathing waters at coastal sites, because clearly there is a major difference in the impact of an overflow event into something as environmentally sensitive and slow-moving as a chalk stream, compared with the massive tides, huge volume and fast-moving seawater of the Atlantic ocean. Saltwater itself can kill some bacteria.
We have seen a surge in year-round activity along our coasts, thanks to improved wetsuits and a growing number of hardy folk wild swimming. However, our bathing water season, which determines when our coastal waters are tested, runs only from May to September, meaning that when water-based tourism is still going strong in Devon there is no testing along our coasts. The bathing season data gives vital historical information about water quality. Although I warmly welcome DEFRA’s announcement yesterday that it plans to consult on a series of potential reforms, it will not resolve the misinformation and lack of immediate information after a storm overflow event.
This winter, tests took place to see if the season could be extended, but it is hard to replicate the Environment Agency’s testing regime with a test tube at the testing site just off the beach, during winter storms with 12-foot waves. Throughout the winter, bathers have to try to work out what is going on from the average of the previous summer’s data, along with details of the last storm overflow, despite having no information about what came out the pipe. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport advises that the Environment Agency provides the gold standard for whether bathing water is clean enough for sporting activities, despite the lack of data for half the year. One group of year-round bathers explained to me that they peer into the water and decide if they think it is safe to go in. Surely, we can do better than that.
Based on the experience of the Environment Agency, one would think it was possible to determine when it was safe to go back into the water after an overflow event. The EA recommends waiting one full tidal rotation before going back into the water after an overflow has run. However, Surfers Against Sewage advises 48 hours, because of viruses and World Health Organisation data, but clearly the issue is bacteria in a storm overflow.
Surfers Against Sewage did such great work when established 40 years ago to make water companies clean up their act along the coast, which has seen an increase in the number of bathing waters with an excellent rating. However, its current campaigning seems to be destroying the hard-won reputation of those bathing waters. Last winter, Devon and Cornwall were under a permanent sewage watch according to Surfers Against Sewage, yet South West Water helped event organisers along the coast to ensure that Christmas and new year swims went ahead as far as possible.
We would all like no overflows to run, but it rains a lot in the south-west of England, and climate change has caused a big increase in the number of big storms and torrential rain. With the best will in the world, the water companies will not stop it raining, and that rain has to go somewhere. Sporadic testing on our beaches shows that, often, the streams running on to the beaches are far more polluted than the water coming out the storm overflows. We need to follow the science and recognise that in constituencies such as mine, less than 1% of the water pollution we deal with is related to human sewage.
There is work to do, but stopping storm overflows is not the be-all and end-all to improving the quality of our bathing water. Even Surfers Against Sewage recognises that there have been improvements, although it does not like my sharing the email it sent me last year, which stated:
“With regards to the beaches in your constituency, we totally agree that huge improvements have been made to water quality there and in many places around the country. And the very last thing we want to do is scare people off from getting in the water.”
Anyone can set up an app and advise whether the water quality is safe, but no one knows whether the water has been tested. Many regular users of our bathing waters recognise that when it rains, even if there is no storm overflow, the water is not as clean as when it has not. We need accurate and up-to-date data on the water quality in its entirety, not just when an overflow has run.
There are some awful examples of when the system does not work. When the Ashford sewage treatment works on the Taw broke down earlier this year, the EA advised closing four beaches, via the councils. However, even though Surfers Against Sewage is normally the first to rush to tell people that there is raw sewage on the beach when there is not, it did not raise a flag at all because it does not use that data. Surf lessons continued because the messages from councils did not reach the beaches, and proper untreated sewage was discharged for six hours. It was not classed as a storm overflow on a bathing water beach, so nobody paid any attention.
The Bill would ensure some form of test data from coastal bathing waters all year round. It would also require water companies to test what is coming out of their storm overflows when they run, and that the term “raw sewage” be used only when the concentration of bacteria warrants it. New definitions would be determined to accurately reflect what is coming out a pipe, and the seawater would be tested after overflow events to accurately determine how long it takes for the pollution in a storm overflow to dissipate, as this varies widely depending on tidal conditions, and by beach and overflow event. Over time, good data banks would be established and better guidance would be issued than the current blanket guidance. Any organisation that fails to follow the guidance would not have access to the data.
Our beachgoers deserve better data. My own surf school said that if we listened to Surfers Against Sewage, we would never go surfing. Despite being in the water every day, not one of its instructors has ever been unwell. We need all-year-round data, instant testing after incidents and consistent advice in a consumer-friendly format. North Devon’s beaches are some of the cleanest in the world. As the one-woman tourist board for North Devon, I urge hon. Members to come down and to swim, surf, sail and enjoy the beautiful coastline. As a mathematician, I know that we need better data. Reducing storm overflows is vital, and this Government are demanding that of water companies. However, just knowing that a pipe has discharged when it has been raining is not good enough. We must get better bathing water data available all year round.
Question put and agreed to.
That Caroline Ansell, Mrs Flick Drummond, Anna Firth, Kevin Foster, Sir Liam Fox, Sir Robert Goodwill, Sally-Ann Hart, Simon Jupp, Cherilyn Mackrory, Matt Warman and Selaine Saxby present the Bill.
Selaine Saxby accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 217).
Terms and Conditions of Employment
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
The draft order will increase the deterrent effect of the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement, which I will refer to as “the code” for the remainder of this debate. The Government have been clear that threats of dismissal and re-engagement should not be used as a negotiation tactic by employers. When the covid-19 pandemic led to cases of dismissal and re-engagement, the Government asked ACAS to conduct an evidence-gathering exercise to help us better understand this issue. The report was published in June 2021. The Government then asked ACAS to produce new guidance to ensure that employers are clear on their responsibilities when considering making changes to employment contracts. The guidance was published in November 2021. ACAS has also published guidance for employees.
The Government then went further to address the use of dismissal and re-engagement by bringing forward a draft code, aiming to ensure that the practice is only ever used as a last resort, and that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. The code seeks to ensure that where an employer wants to make changes to employees’ terms and conditions, the employer engages in meaningful consultation with a view to reaching agreement with employees or their representatives in good faith.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We discussed this issue upstairs in Committee. Can he confirm whether the motion, which puts the code into practice, would stop Willie Walsh from threatening to fire and rehire 10,000 air stewards, air stewardesses and others at British Airways, or the workers at British Gas—yes or no?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is wrong to talk about individual cases, because they are all different, with different circumstances. The order is about a financial deterrent against those kinds of actions. Different sanctions are available for the mistreatment of employees, such as civil or criminal investigation by the Insolvency Service. Different measures can be taken forward where rules are not complied with.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He talked about the extra 25% putting off businesses and employers from going down that route. If it will save businesses a heck of a lot more money than the alternative, surely they will go down the same route. They will potentially price in the 25% if it will save them more money in the long run, particularly in a British Airways situation where it was dealing with legacy contracts and trying to save substantial amounts of money. Surely this is not enough of a disincentive.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Most employers treat their employees with dignity and respect. That is what we expect and what we see in the vast majority of cases. An economic environment in which we have virtually full employment means a competitive market for employees. That is the best protection against the kind of approach that some employers take and which we are trying mitigate. We believe the measures strike a fair balance. We believe there are situations where dismissal and re-engagement is appropriate—I can expand on that if he would like me to—so it is about trying to strike a balance, and we think we have struck that balance.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. Does he appreciate that many of us think the code looks very optimistic, presuming a best-case scenario in human behaviour and industrial relations, and that the result is really toothless in dealing with companies that might operate outwith the norm?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not think so. There is a financial deterrent to going down a route that is not appropriate, and to not following the code. As I say, we are striking a balance. There are situations in which, as a last resort, businesses need to do something more drastic; for example, a business might be in peril and unable to survive without making the kind of changes we are discussing, and such cases have come before tribunals. If the question is whether it is right that everybody shares a small burden—say, a reduction in salary—one person cannot hold out against that, and prevent a restructuring that is in the interests of the many, rather than the few. The provisions have been used in the past to save businesses and therefore jobs. That is what we are trying to protect, while also protecting against a rogue employer using such opportunities irresponsibly and unfairly.
The code will apply to all employers, regardless of size. We expect all employers in relevant scenarios to adhere to it. As I said, employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with a code that applies.
In accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS on a draft statutory code before publishing it. Between January and April 2023, the Government publicly consulted on a draft code, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views. Careful consideration was given to those views, and as a result, changes were made to the draft code. The Government are very grateful to all respondents to the consultation for their considered and helpful responses. An updated draft code was laid before Parliament on 19 February, and a Government response to the consultation was published on the same day. The draft code was then debated in both Houses of Parliament. I am pleased to say that it was approved. The Government will introduce separate legislation to bring the code into force before summer recess.
The Government are going even further by bringing forward this order, which will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding a protective award where there is non-compliance with the collective consultation requirements in schedule A2 to the 1992 Act. The protective award is compensation awarded by an employment tribunal when an employer does not consult with its employees before dismissing 20 or more of them within any 90-day period at a single establishment. Schedule A2 to the 1992 Act sets out the list of claims for which an employment tribunal can make a 25% adjustment to compensation if one of the parties has unreasonably failed to comply with a code of practice made using powers in section 203 of the 1992 Act. The relevant code of practice that will be impacted by this change is the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. The change will mean that where an employment tribunal is making a protective award, and it appears to it that the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, the tribunal may increase that award by up to 25%. The change was called for by respondents to the consultation, including trade unions, and will increase the deterrent effect of the code.
There are calls to ban the practice of dismissal and re-engagement, or to restrict the practice in a manner that effectively amounts to a ban. The Government believe that we must preserve companies’ flexibility, so that they can manage their workforce in times of crisis. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helps business to thrive, so it is right that we have mechanisms to enable us to save as many jobs as possible. The code is a proportionate response to controversial fire and rehire practices, balancing protections for employees with business flexibility. The vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, decisions to change terms and conditions, or to let members of the workforce go, are not taken lightly.
The UK is a great place to start and grow a business. It has a strong labour market, and its success is underpinned by the balance between labour market flexibility and worker protections. It is vital that we continue to strike the right balance, while clamping down on poor practice. The Government intend the code and the order to be in effect before the summer recess. I commend the order to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Let me begin by referring to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the debate, and for making the necessary amendments to primary legislation so soon after the code of practice was approved. It has taken us more than two years, but today we see the first actual legislative change to tackle the blight of dismissal and re-engagement—or fire and rehire, as it is more commonly known. We will not oppose today’s motion, but we are clear that the order does not go anywhere near far enough towards ending this cruel practice, or meet the promises made by the Government.
During the two years since we witnessed those disgraceful scenes at P&O, it has continued to benefit from taxpayers’ cash through Government contracts, and fire and rehire hasusb continued to toxify our industrial relations landscape. While the P&O Ferries case itself did not entirely constitute fire and rehire, it bore many of the hallmarks of the practice and exposed the gaping holes in our law—holes that continue to be exploited; in the wake of the pandemic, there has been a jump in the number of instances of employers choosing to fire and rehire workers.
According to research conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that conducted fire and rehire almost doubled. What was once a seldom-used device has become a mainstream practice, and part of the wider pattern of growing insecurity at work. In short, it has become a first choice, rather than a last resort. A TUC investigation found that about 38,000 employers were still using fire and rehire as a tactic. However, when we were finally given the code that we were promised would tackle this Dickensian practice, we found instead a vague, weak and disappointing document that would not actually prevent another case as egregious as P&O. On that basis alone, the Government have failed to keep the promise that they made more than two years ago.
The element that many people found most offensive about the P&O case, which today’s motion seeks to address, is the fact that the P&O management were able to look at the sanctions for which they were potentially liable and then decide whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. In effect, the cost of breaking the law was considered to be just another business overhead to be factored into decision making, and, as we saw, the management decided that those sanctions were not a strong enough deterrent to prevent rule-breaking. In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that a 25% penalty
“may not always present a significant deterrent when calculated against the financial costs and risks of an alternative approach.”
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I raised exactly those concerns at the time in relation to P&O. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument—and, incidentally, I congratulate the Minister on the motion—but the critical factor is the size of the business involved. A very large business can absorb all kinds of costs that a small local firm cannot. That has been the change, and the regulations that we put in place need to reflect that change, because otherwise those large businesses will behave with impunity.
Justin Madders
I will refer to other comments made by ACAS in response to the consultation, which I think will pick up some of the right hon. Gentleman’s observations.
We now have a clear indication that unscrupulous employers cannot get away scot-free with breaking the law, but there are concerns that a 25% uplift will not be enough to deter bad employers who are determined to do what they feel is necessary. Once P&O had calculated the maximum penalty that it could face in compensation for each employee, it priced that into its decision. In effect, it was able to treat the law on consultation—a law that is there to protect workers’ jobs and their dignity—as optional. Today’s motion means that breaking the law will remain an option; it just might be a slightly more expensive one now.
Laws are only as strong as their enforcement. We believe that sanctions should reflect the egregiousness of the transgression. If an employer decides to break the law, the sanction should not be capped, but instead should be decided on the basis of the facts. That would mean that any employers who were tempted to brazenly flout their legal obligations, having calculated the cost of breaking the law, would no longer be able to do so, because the cost of the sanction could, in the most serious cases, be much higher than the cost of complying with the law. Smaller transgressions would be treated accordingly by a tribunal. As things stand, the most egregious abuses have a cost ceiling, so those with ill intent can still price in the cost of acting unlawfully.
In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that there were
“grounds for considering whether additional or alternative financial disincentives might help…the government’s policy objectives”,
including
“greater uplifts of awards where this is just and equitable”
or
“where there are especially egregious breaches of the Code.”
It also suggested—this is relevant to the intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—that when deciding appropriate awards, courts and tribunals might be required to consider, for example, whether the employer ought to have known better than to breach the code, the degree of legal advice readily available to it, and its financial resources. We agree with those suggestions. The arrogant, uncaring and deliberate trampling of workers’ rights requires a stronger message from this place that those actions will no longer be tolerated. Bad employers should not be able to buy their way out of doing the right thing, but instead we see the status quo preserved.
Thankfully, many good employers understand the importance of working collaboratively with unions. We commend those employers, and we know that they already go above and beyond the legal requirements, but there is no evidence that the 25% uplift is likely to prove a deterrent to those who do not. The Government do not know how often the compensatory uplift is used in other areas of employment law where there is a similar penalty for transgressing a code of practice, which prompts us to ask on what basis it has been decided that this measure will be effective in preventing employers from failing to follow the code of practice.
We welcome the fact that the order extends the scope of compensation to any situation in which a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is applicable. I understand that to mean that more traditional redundancy situations will be covered, but there are limitations. There must be 20 or more employees at the same establishment for the obligations to be activated, which means that many smaller employers—and, probably more pertinently, many more employers whose workforce may be spread across many different settings, retail being an obvious example—can still be excluded. The measure also only protects “employees”, which means that some of the most insecure workers in the labour market will not benefit one jot; and, of course, the Government intend to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which, as we know from experience, inhibit people from enforcing their rights.
The regulations also provide for a 25% reduction in compensation when an employee unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice. During last month’s debate on the code, I asked the Minister what elements of the P&O case, or indeed any recent mass redundancy exercise, had led him to believe that such provisions were necessary. I am afraid that I did not receive a satisfactory response then, so I will ask the question again. Is it not the case that nothing in recent high-profile examples of fire and rehire redundancy has made it necessary to give tribunals the power to take away compensation from employees?
We will not oppose the motion, because it is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction, but let me make it absolutely clear that what is before us will not prevent another case as egregious as that of P&O. It has taken us two years to reach this point—two years in which we have seen growing insecurity at work, and have come no closer to providing the protections that workers in this country deserve. When the Government committed themselves to responding to the outrage of P&O, there was a moment of consensus across the business world, across the political spectrum and indeed across the whole country that this disgraceful practice should be consigned to the history books. Epitomising that consensus, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said:
“we will not allow this to happen again…where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and...where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
Those legal loopholes remain as open as they did two years ago, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent the outrage of P&O happening again. That is yet another example of the long list of wrongs that will need a Labour Government to put them right. It is time to end the race to the bottom. It is time to end fire and rehire.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
When I saw the Order Paper and an item titled “Terms and Conditions of Employment”, I thought that it was good news—after the 20 times the Government have committed to an employment Bill, perhaps we would actually see it. I thought that nearly seven years on from the Taylor review, of which almost 50 recommendations have not been enacted or brought before the House, we would have an opportunity to create dignity, fairness and an inclusive labour market, leading to a fairer and more equal nation. But what we have today is a snail step, albeit one that I will welcome, with some qualifications.
The reality is that for thousands of workers across these islands, terms and conditions of employment see too many working people become victims at the mercy of bosses looking to cut costs, which is exactly what fire and rehire is about. It is also about zero-hour contracts, bogus self-employment and short notice of shift changes, leaving workers with additional transport and childcare costs, but I want to concentrate on the evil practice of fire and rehire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who has had to go to a Committee, has tabled two private Member’s Bills that seek to outlaw fire and rehire practices. The Bills are supported by over 100 MPs and the trade unions Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB. I listened carefully to the Minister’s exchanges with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and my scepticism about the order being approved today relates to what would happen in a tribunal case for unfair dismissal where a re-engagement order is placed on an employer following a dismissal, and the tribunal orders a reinstatement. We all know that very few cases in which a tribunal tells an employer to reinstate a worker who has been dismissed leads to a reinstatement, because employers will absorb the additional costs for failing to reinstate. I welcome the fact that there will be a penalty where fire and rehire has taken place, but the same principles are at play here.
I am afraid my scepticism relates to the fact that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have said, this order will not end the practice of fire and rehire. Large employers will get their calculators out and absorb the costs, like we have seen with British Airways and P&O. I saw the Business and Trade Committee’s extraordinary exchanges with P&O’s chief executive last week. I want to see real sanctions, so I ask the Minister to write to us and tell us how many tribunal cases where there has been an order to reinstate have actually led to a reinstatement. I understand that the rate could be as low as 3%, but I would be curious to know the figures, because I suspect that they could tell us what would happen with fire-and-rehire practices.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I agree with my hon. Friend, but will not companies such as British Airways, P&O and Asda, which have indulged in this behaviour, look at this as a balance sheet exercise and conclude that the penalty is so small that they can ride it out? Does that not make the case for the Government bringing forward an employment Bill to deal with the issue?
Chris Stephens
I agree that there should be an employment Bill but, exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined, our concern would be that large employers will get the calculator out and decide to absorb the cost. They will then, as they see it, take a smaller financial hit from paying a penalty than they would for fire and rehire. It is an evil practice, and I hope the Government will now consider ending fire and rehire.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and will address their specific points. As we have discussed this issue before in separate venues, I fully understand that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), does not feel that this order goes far enough. It is interesting to consider the briefings that came from recent discussions in the Labour party about its new plans for the workplace. There was a briefing that the party accepted some situations where dismissal and re-engagement may be needed. That may be a vicious rumour, but it seems to me that those on the Labour Front Bench decide their policy on the basis of whom they have talked to last—whether that is a business, employers or employee representatives.
Justin Madders
We remain committed to banning fire and rehire, but if the Minister wants to debate our policies properly, let us have a general election and see what the public think.
Kevin Hollinrake
Why wait? Let us have the debate now.
The shadow Minister mentioned P&O, as did many other hon. and right hon. Members. Clearly, that was not a situation involving fire and rehire. There is an ongoing investigation, and we believe that P&O broke the law. Following that situation, we introduced the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to ensure that any company that operates vessels in British waters will pay the national living wage, which will be an effective measure.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) described fire and rehire as an “evil practice”, which is not the right kind of language. There are situations where sometimes employers do the wrong thing by their employees, but most employers do the right thing. There are businesses that have no alternative other than fire and rehire in order to save the business and save jobs. To describe every situation involving dismissal and re-engagement as an “evil practice” is entirely the wrong kind of language.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. Surely dismissing people and re-engaging them on worse terms and conditions, and in many cases on lower wages—many multinational companies try to get away with that, and some did get away with it during the pandemic—is an evil practice.
Kevin Hollinrake
There are cases where these opportunities are abused—I do not deny that—but the hon. Gentleman is operating on the basis that it is the exception rather than the rule. It is our view, which he may disagree with, that the vast majority of employers do not treat their employees that way. There have been cases where a court has upheld the right of an employer to fire and rehire. Where the employer tries to restructure the company to save jobs, through a salary reduction of a few per cent. for everyone in the workplace, that is better than the business going down. The hon. Gentleman must see that there are some situations in which it is the only option for an employer, which operates in the interests of the wider workforce. It was the right thing to do in those situations. His describing it as an “evil practice” is wrong and misses the point, although there are abuses of the system, as he describes.
David Linden
Unusually, I find myself disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Are there not scenarios in which the Government think that it is perfectly fine for somebody to be sacked and re-engaged? For example, when the Government led by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) were collapsing, Ministers resigned and were then reappointed afterwards. Sometimes it is in the Government’s interest to have that option, isn’t it?
Kevin Hollinrake
Well, there is no recourse to an employment tribunal in that situation, and there is certainly no uplift in the compensation that might be received.
I say to the shadow Minister that he should frame the order in its context. The majority of businesses in this country do the right thing by their employees, because they are run by honourable people and treating employees well is the right thing to do for business reasons. His approach of banning dismissal and re-engagement would cost jobs, as would having day-one rights in the area of unfair dismissal. Bringing forward a single category of worker would also cost jobs, and would create huge difficulties for many sectors. It is not just about the situations that arise in individual circumstances; it is about the fear of those situations arising for businesses when they are trying a new employee. That situation will strike fear into the hearts of many businesses across this country, and will cost jobs. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) asked me how many people had appeared before an employment tribunal and then been reinstated. I do not know those numbers but I would be happy to see what numbers we can find for him on that basis.
This order will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding the protective award for non-compliance with collective consultation requirements to schedule A2 of the 1992 Act. That will mean that where an employer is found to have unreasonably failed to comply with their collective consultation requirements, as well as unreasonably failing to comply with the code, the employment tribunal may increase the employee’s protective award by up to 25%. Subject to the approval of both Houses, the code and the order will be enforced before the summer recess.
The Government are committed to making the UK the most dynamic place in the world to work and to launch, grow and do business. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helping businesses to thrive. However, labour market flexibility must be balanced with appropriate safeguards. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
Employment (Allocation of Tips)
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the draft Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
The code of practice, which I will refer to as the code, will give legal effect to standards in the allocation and distribution of tips, gratuities and service charges, and transparency surrounding the keeping of records and the retention of written tipping policies. For brevity, I will refer to tips, gratuities and service charges as tips for the rest of today’s debate. Passage of this code will signal a landmark moment in our protection of workers’ rights. For the first time, the Government are ensuring cast-iron clarity about where tips are going once they have been paid, and setting a new standard for how tips should be treated.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said that, for brevity, he would consider tips, gratuities and service charges all to be tips, but surely service charges, which are a set charge against some practice or service, are quite different from tips, which are for fun or voluntary. Gratuities come somewhere between the two, do they not? Could he kindly enlarge on the definition of those three things?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is our position that they amount to the same thing. We know from customer behaviour that when a customer sees a service charge on their bill, they will usually not tip at that point because they believe that the service charge is a tip. We feel that that is in the same category, which is why we have categorised them together in this instance.
The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 was a relatively simple piece of legislation, but one with an important purpose. Following the justified public examination a few years ago of the spectacle of some businesses retaining significant percentages of tips or even keeping them altogether, the Government committed to backing a private Member’s Bill on tipping. The law mandates that all qualifying tips must be passed on to the workers who earn them, rather than being retained by businesses, and it sets out that these tips must be allocated and distributed in a fair and transparent manner.
I reiterate my appreciation, which I set out at this Dispatch Box earlier this year, for the cross-party support that the primary legislation engendered, and for the positive and constructive tone in which all the parliamentary stages were conducted. I want to extend further thanks in particular to the original Bill’s sponsors, my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), and subsequently Lord Robathan in the House of Lords. Today we are another step closer to bringing these important measures into effect.
It was remarked at the time that the detail was crucial, and we elaborated on that detail in December with the publication of the draft statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips. I am grateful for the large volume and quality of the responses we received during the public consultation that followed. Everyone who provided feedback, whether via an online survey, through an email response or in a meeting with officials at my Department, should know that their views have been considered carefully. Responses have been used to amend and enhance the code, and will continue to inform the communications and support for businesses implementing these measures.
We were pleased to lay the updated code of practice before Parliament on Monday 22 April. The code was also published on gov.uk alongside a full Government response to the consultation, which provides more detail on the feedback received from businesses, workers and other stakeholders. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members have had, or will have, the opportunity to study the detail of the code in their own time, but I will briefly set out its provisions here today.
The code of practice contains summaries of the key intentions of the Act. The code sets out the scope of this legislation, emphasising that it covers all qualifying tips—that is, employer-received tips and worker-received tips over which an employer exerts control or significant influence. These measures apply to every sector and across England, Scotland and Wales. The code goes on to provide more detail on the need to maintain fairness in the allocation and distribution of tips. Rather than being prescriptive and potentially burdensome to employers, the code articulates key principles for employers to consider, protecting both the rights of workers and flexibility for a variety of approaches from businesses.
The code helps employers to engage in constructive and positive consultation with their workers, and helps to minimise the risk of discrimination, which may be indirect or unintentional, if due care is not taken. The code sets out that employers need to uphold transparency in the handling of tips. This includes keeping a written tipping policy that is clearly communicated to all affected workers. This requirement also includes retaining accurate tipping records to which workers have the right to request access. One thing to note is that this need to maintain a written tipping policy and make it available to workers does not apply to businesses that receive tips only on an occasional and exceptional basis.
Finally, the code expands on how to resolve conflicts that arise between employers and workers. While early and internal resolution of issues is preferable for all involved, workers may consult ACAS for impartial advice and assistance in resolving problems. The code informs workers about how an unresolved dispute may be escalated to an employment tribunal.
James Gray
I am listening to the Minister carefully. I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the original Act I should be, and I apologise if I ask a foolish question as a result. He mentioned a moment ago that the code of practice would not apply to industries in which tipping occurs only rarely. Will he expand on what those are? For example, if I tip a taxi driver, would it apply to that? Obviously not. If I tip a waiter in a restaurant because he has been particularly helpful to me, why should that be shared with other people in the restaurant? To what sort of industries would the code not apply?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said earlier, that provision does not apply to an industry or organisation that receives tips on an occasional or exceptional basis. An example would be a Christmas box or a Christmas present for somebody, or an industry that is not used to getting those kinds of gifts. My hon. Friend talked about the taxi industry, which is an industry in which people regularly receive tips. He also talked about a situation where a customer gives a tip directly to a worker. That tip can be kept by the worker if it is given directly to that worker and is not in the control of the employer. That is the difference: a tip given directly to somebody in a restaurant or some other place can be kept by that individual. We would expect that to be set out in a policy at employer level.
I want to take this opportunity to place on the record the Government’s gratitude to ACAS and all those involved in the tribunal system for their continued diligence on tipping and many other matters of employment law. Overall, the Government are proud today to endorse the approval of this code of practice. Following approval by this House and by the House of Lords, the code and the other measures in the Act will come into force on Tuesday 1 October.
With this code of practice, the Government are righting a wrong, delivering a level playing field for businesses and continuing our proud record of standing up for and defending the rights of workers. I commend the statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction. Once again, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for their work on the private Member’s Bill that led to where we are today.
As the Minister outlined, we are finally here to debate the code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, which is necessary to deliver the provisions of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. I say “finally” not just because it has taken a year since Royal Assent for a code to be agreed, but because it has been seven years since action was first promised on tips.
As far back as 2017, the Conservatives promised to ensure fair tips for hospitality workers. In that time, it is estimated that workers will have missed out on some £200 million a year in lost tips. That is over £1 billion taken from workers in some of the economy’s lowest paid jobs. It is a little disappointing to see that the Government have delayed the Act’s implementation from July until October 2024. By our calculations, this further delay will cost people in the hospitality sector another £50 million.
With that out of the way, I make it clear that we will not oppose the code. Action on tips is already long overdue, and we do not want to see it delayed any longer. We believe that these measures will have a positive impact on the lives of workers in the hospitality sector and other industries that frequently receive tips, but we also consider that there is room for improvement. I will refer to those specific issues in due course.
However, I start by referring to the Government’s consultation, which starkly set out why action is needed. The proportion of respondents who reported that they did not receive the tips to which they were entitled was very significant. Only half of those who completed the consultation reported that staff receive all the tips. Of course, this means that half the respondents to the consultation do not. Extrapolated across those working in the sector, around 1 million workers will benefit from this legislation. Of those reporting that staff do not receive all the tips, 21% reported that there was an administrative fee, another 13% said there were other deductions, and a staggering 11% reported that no tips were passed on at all. It is jarring that, in the face of such clear mistreatment of workers, there has been such a delay to get to this point. That the Government chose to delay the implementation of the Act after discovering the staggering statistics in the consultation rubs a little salt into the wound.
Some 73% of workers who responded to the consultation reported that their employer had not sought agreement on the allocation of tips, and 40% of employers consulted did not pass on tips to agency workers, in part or in total, which clearly needs to be addressed, and it will be by this legislation. These statistics may be a reason why we face another delay, because clearly a lot of businesses need to get up to speed in order to be compliant, which begs the question of why more has not been done before now.
Will the Minister outline the Government’s approach to working with businesses to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the new laws? What steps will the Department take to ensure support in the areas where businesses raised concerns in the consultation, such as transparency and record keeping on tip allocation and distribution? I am particularly interested in how the Department plans to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they remain compliant with the law once it comes into effect. Workers will benefit only if employers are aware of and compliant with the law, so it would be welcome to hear the Government’s plans.
I draw the House’s attention to a couple of specific elements of the code. Paragraph 25, on employers consulting their workforce on the policy, seems pretty minimal in setting out what a good consultation looks like. If an individual makes an employment tribunal claim, does the Minister envisage there being any opportunity for there to be an examination of the quality of the consultation?
The very important point at paragraph 26 needs further clarification. It says that employers should review their allocation policy “on a regular basis”, but there is no indication of the timescale within which this should take place. Does the Minister have a view on what the timescale might be? We are dealing with a workforce who might change quite regularly.
That leads me to the question of enforcement. I repeat the old adage that people’s rights are only as strong as their ability to enforce them. The sector to which the Act predominantly applies is made up of workers in insecure, low-paid jobs that are generally in non-unionised workplaces. Staff turnover is high, meaning that many workers do not stay with the same employer, or even within the same industry, for long periods of time.
These factors will doubtless have an impact on workers’ ability to assert the rights afforded under the Act. Many may be entirely unaware of the stipulations of the Act. Even if they are aware of the stipulations, they might not always be aware of the ways in which they can enforce them. Particularly if the Government persist with their plan to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, it may well not be financially viable for people to assert their rights, as the fee for lodging a claim might well be more than a worker is seeking to claim back.
More fundamentally, a worker on a zero-hours contract or in another form of insecure work may fear that asserting their rights will be detrimental to their future chances of receiving work. For example, if a worker on a zero-hours contract is concerned that they have been underpaid the tips to which they are entitled and requests to view their tipping record, as is their right under the Act, their employer might consider this behaviour to be stirring the pot and choose to reduce the hours they give that worker, or possibly even to stop giving them work at all. A worker with less than two years’ service can be dismissed without cause and have no claim for unfair dismissal.
The legislation does not cater for people to claim that they have been unfairly dismissed for asserting their statutory rights under the Act. If that is the case, it is a huge oversight given that there is protection against unfair dismissal for asserting most other statutory rights. Will the Minister consider looking at this point again, as there is a real concern that, unless people have legal protection and confidence that the law is on their side, they may be reluctant to avail themselves of their rights.
In terms of the impact on the tribunal system, have the Government made an assessment of the propensity of those in the hospitality sector to take forward claims? Has modelling been done to judge the expected number of workers who will take forward tribunal claims?
It seems to me that the lack of proper protections will mean that the minority of bad employers will be able to continue operating with impunity, withholding the tips that their workers have rightfully earned. As a minimum, I would expect there to be some monitoring of the legislation’s effectiveness, perhaps through surveys or consultations. After all, paragraph 35 of the code states:
“An employer cannot be said to have met its obligation to handle tips fairly and transparently if individual workers are not aware of their entitlements in line with the tipping policy.”
If we are to have confidence that those words mean something, surely we need monitoring to ensure that the code is effective.
There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise. First, on when a worker is entitled to receive their tips for a given month, the code makes reference to the provision that a tip must be paid by the end of the next month. There is a question about why tips are not passed over on the same schedule as most workers are paid.
Secondly, according to paragraph 13, tipping by app is judged to be out of scope of the legislation. Can the Minister confirm exactly what “tipping by app” means? I take it to be a form of digital tipping, akin to leaving cash, but we need some clarity. Will he outline what work the Department has done to identify the types of tipping practices that will be in scope? There is a concern that, although tipping by app might not be widespread now, it could be seen as a way to avoid obligations under the Act in certain circumstances, to prevent staff from getting the tips that were intended for them.
In summary, we welcome the fact that the Government have finally got to the stage of being able to implement this policy. Sadly, we will have to wait another five months for it to be implemented, but the changes set out today will have a positive impact on workers, who for too long have been losing money that was always intended for them. We will monitor the progress of this legislation closely and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the good intentions behind this Act are delivered in full.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
It is a proud moment for me to stand here today, because I brought in the private Member’s Bill behind this change and was able to get it over the line with the able effort and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). It is a joyous day, because I am absolutely passionate about two things, fairness and Watford, and we have some fantastic hospitality locations in Watford. Our cafés and restaurants include Jamaica Blue, the Flourish bakery, the Beech House, the Tudor Arms, the Sun Postal sports club, the Badger pub, Rhubarb Café, Random Café, Cassio Lounge and so many more. I would love everyone here to visit as often as possible, because they would see delights that they would get nowhere else in the world.
I list all those locations because in each hospitality organisation, in each café and restaurant, there are not only people who run the business, but many staff who work in it. I was talking about the tips Bill way back when I originally tried to introduce it via a presentation Bill, which did not quite make it through. As I have a routine of never giving up, I managed to obtain a private Member’s Bill—that was through luck—and then got it through, very much with thanks to the Government. I especially thank the Minister who is on the Front Bench today, who is doing incredible work, and his team.
This measure was so important to me because I would go to meet these organisations and chat to staff, especially during the pandemic, and they were all consistent in their concerns about whether they would get to keep tips. A big shift took place at that time from people giving cash to somebody individually towards a world where cash is not so common. That is not necessarily a good place to be, but it is the way the world has moved. Far more people will now pay a tip on a credit card at the end of a meal or when they leave a café. Every one of us will have asked the same question when we have made that payment and given our tip, which is, “Will you get this?” My Bill will help to resolve that.
James Gray
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his superb effort in getting his Bill through, as it is a wonderful thing to have done. I support the principles behind it, but I am slightly puzzled by one aspect: should the restauranteur or bar owner not be charging the correct price for the service, without any tip or service charge having to be added on? Should he not be paying his workers a fair wage for the job they are doing, without any tips, service charge or other things added? Surely my hon. Friend’s Bill will set this in stone. I say that even though I do not like tips very much, as I would much rather pay a fair price to the restauranteur and to the person who works for them.
Dean Russell
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which gets to the heart of this: the fairness here is to not just the workers, but the businesses. Most businesses do the right thing and pay a decent salary. The Minister can correct me on this, but I believe that legislation taken through a while ago means that tips cannot form part of a salary. So businesses should be paying a decent wage. When some organisations do the wrong thing, what they are doing is anti-competitive; they are making profit off the backs of their workers by keeping their tips, and the businesses doing the right thing in giving 100% of the tips to the staff are less competitive. My approach is therefore far fairer to the majority of businesses that do the right thing, and to the workers. It is also far fairer to the customers, who thought that the money was going to the staff and did not realise that a percentage of it, or in some instances all of it, was being taken from them.
My Bill will ensure fairness—that is the key word we should all take from the Bill and from today’s debate. It will ensure that all tips, 100% of them, are paid to staff. Agency staff will be included in that; when I originally talked about this Bill, some had a concern about a two-tier system for workers. The Bill will also ensure that a policy is in place—a code of practice—so that businesses ensure that their staff know where they stand. Businesses will be able to be clear with everyone who works for them how the tipping practice will work; I will not go through the full list, as the Minister did an excellent job of listing it earlier.
This measure has been a journey. I mentioned my work on the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, but, as with all journeys, I began this trek much earlier. In many ways, this began with the fantastic work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) when he was a Secretary of State. He put in place the work enabling the Government to look at how we could make sure tipping was fair, so this measure is built on the shoulders of giants. I will not list them now, but many Members have been involved in making sure my Bill came to fruition. Many organisations were also involved, and I thank UKHospitality, especially Kate Nicholls, who has done a fantastic job; and the Night Time Industries Association, which has done brilliant work. Conservative Members do not often talk positively about unions, but the GMB has done fantastic work, and I should give another mention to ACAS. Lots of businesses, employers and employees have also really pushed for this to come to fruition.
I want to thank some current and former members of the Government, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who was incredibly supportive when I originally tried to bring my legislation in as a presentation Bill. At the time, we were going to make it part of the Employment Bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but many of the policies that were going to be included did happen through various other routes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who was a fantastic supporter and an able Minister.
Of course, I also thank the Minister before us today and his team. He has been excellent in making sure that this is pushed forward and, through him, I would like to thank his team. Some of them were my team in my short time as a Minister, so I know the passion they had about making sure that we got this right. During my brief time as a Minister, I had to hand over this precious baby of mine, the tips Bill, to a colleague to make sure we could keep it moving forward through the House. That was when I was able to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has an incredibly important hospitality industry in her constituency. I could not think of someone more able and more energetic to make sure that we got the Bill through. Through her work and our work with Lord Robathan, we made sure that it got through and received Royal Assent. Many Members will not know that on the day it was given, I was fortunate enough to meet the King that morning in Parliament—I am sure that is a rare story and one for a pub quiz sometime in the future.
The other person I would like to give a huge thanks to is the lady who rarely gets a mention in here but who is behind so many of these incredibly important Bills: my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). She does an incredible job in giving us guidance on how to navigate the complex system of getting a Bill through Parliament and in giving us confidence that it is possible. She has made sure that many Bills have got through and gone on this incredibly important journey, including many others in which I have had involvement in different ways, such as those on flexible working, maternity care, leave and so on.
My Bill will help about 2 million hospitality workers across the UK. That is an incredible number. When I have spoken about this to people around the House or to my constituents, I have found that so many more people will talk about its importance: customers who want to make sure that money for which they have worked hard and which they are giving as a thank you gets to the people they are giving it to; and colleagues who have family members who work as waiters or waitresses, or who work in bars, as this will make sure that they get the money that has been gifted to them. Many colleagues have spoken to me about their experiences of working in hospitality while at university or when they were younger. That has shown me how the hospitality sector plays an important role in our society: it provides a type of apprenticeship to many of us before our careers. We learn a lot about our culture, society and community, as well as about people, through hospitality. That is why I have been so passionate about saving our night-time economy, including music venues, in Watford and across the UK. Music venues have been at the heart of our society and I fear they may be damaged in the future, but I hope the Bill may play a small part in helping them.
The Bill is also about fairness. It is impossible to legislate for fairness in society—it is a gut feel—but fairness is at the heart of what it is to be British. We believe in fairness in all parts of our society. At its heart, the legislation goes back to the fact that when someone gives money as a gift to someone else, they expect them to get it. That is what this Bill will ensure, and I am grateful to the Government for that.
I want to raise a couple of related points with the Minister to ensure they are covered as the legislation moves forward. We need to ensure there is a communications strategy before October so that workers know their rights, how to access them and what is covered. Businesses also need to know that the legislation will not be a burden. During the early stages of the Bill, I was mindful that it must not be a burden and more red tape for businesses. The majority of businesses get that and understand it. Those that were doing the wrong thing will, no doubt, kick up a fuss. Over the coming weeks and months, we will probably hear about businesses trying to get around the regulations by forming new practices. I hope the Government will clamp down on those, and name and shame the businesses involved; I will certainly be happy to do that to ensure that fairness is the heart of the regulations.
The Government have a role to play in supporting the hospitality sector as a whole as best they can. Businesses in the sector are important parts of our communities; they are in the heart of every village, town and city. Hospitality is often the reason people visit an area, it is often the first port of call for a job and a career, and it plays an important role in entertainment and culture. No other industry has such an important and broad role, so I want to ensure it is fair. I thank the Government, the Minister and colleagues across the House who have been incredibly supportive, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. Finally, may I say a huge thank you to my constituents in Watford? If they had not put me here, the Bill may not have been making progress today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I thank him and congratulate him on the private Member’s Bill that led to this code of practice coming to the Floor of the House. It is a small but significant step forward in improving workers’ rights. Regardless of our political differences—I suspect there are many—I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be kind, thoughtful and dedicated to public service, and I am very grateful for that. It is therefore no surprise that having won the equivalent of the parliamentary lottery, he chose to bring forward legislation that commands such cross-party support, and I thank him for that.
I will make reference to the briefing issued by Unite the union later in my remarks, but at the outset I declare my own membership of Unite, although I should be clear that I have no particular financial interests to declare.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament has been the lack of significant progress on improving employment law more generally. Yes, there have been piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the Bills brought forward by the hon. Member for Watford, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but they have all come forward as limited Back-Bench Bills. It is undeniable that a vacuum was created for these private Members’ Bills to move forward due to the sheer absence of the substantial Government employment Bill that many of us expected. Indeed, we were promised such a Bill on no less than 20 occasions by Ministers. It is now seven years since the Taylor review and still no action has been forthcoming from the recommendations of that report.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to correct the record. A number of recommendations in the Taylor review have been implemented, not least the right to request predictable terms and conditions, which went further than the recommendations in the review. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that fact?
David Linden
I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some recommendations from the Taylor review have been progressed, but no significant action has been forthcoming. A lot of MPs have said that; indeed, even the hon. Member for Watford said it was regrettable that there was not an employment Bill. I am simply pointing out the fact that an employment Bill was promised in this Parliament. We found time to legislate on a whole manner of other issues, some of which have, frankly, been with a view to creating a wedge at the general election, whereas we know that the legislation framework we have around employment law is not necessarily fit for the 21st century and the kind of economy we now have.
The UK exited the European Union in January 2020 to the cheers and trumpets of Brexiteers who promised that Britannia unchained from Brussels would lead to an improvement in workers’ rights. In reality, and from what I can see in Glasgow, all that has happened is that employers in the hospitality and tourism sectors now just have fewer workers.
In citing the briefing from Unite, I want to thank it for the work it has done to engage with employees and to gauge their opinions about tipping policy. For context, those who have responded are already engaged trade unionists with a track record of activism and a decent understanding of policy. That is what makes the answers particularly striking. When asking whether an employee’s workplace passed on all tips to its staff the answers were: yes, 63%; don’t know, 21%; no, 11%; and some 5% indicated that tips were only accepted by card on an employer-operated tronc that employees paid tax on. Those statistics paint a picture of the sheer scale of the issues workers face, especially when it comes to tipping in hospitality.
On tipping policy, some other issues need to be ironed out and considered further, namely whether backroom staff, such as those who are integral to preparing and producing a meal, not just delivering it to the table, be tipped, and whether the tips are being distributed equitably. All workers need to be eligible to receive tips, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or are permanent. Progress has been made on extending tips to agency workers, but in reality we now operate in a gig economy. It is vital that the legislative framework that comes from this place reflects that.
From the Government’s response to the consultation, 40% of employers admit that they do not issue tips to agency workers despite that being an obligation under section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hon. Member for Watford was spot on when he said that the comms to employers and employees must be very clear in the run-up to October this year. There must be something that can be done, for example, with employees who still receive a payslip. Could the Government bring forward measures to require all employers to put some sort of small note on payslips to make clear that the laws on tipping will change in a couple of months?
The legislation we are piloting through the House today makes the point that our legislative framework does not reflect the reality of the UK economy and labour force in 2024. More needs to be done to protect workers, especially those on zero-hours contracts. Arguably, that point should weigh heavily on the minds of shadow Ministers who, if polls are to be believed, might shortly be assuming red boxes and Whitehall offices in the coming months.
As we approach the cigarette end of this Parliament, attention turns to the incoming Government and their ambitions for workers’ rights. It would be fair to say that the small c conservative approach to workers’ rights from the official Opposition has not necessarily been wholly welcomed by those in the Labour movement. Only last week, Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was on record as saying:
“It looks like all the warnings Unite made earlier about the dangers of Labour rowing back on its pledges for the New Deal for Workers have been proved right. This new Labour document on the New Deal, issued to the unions on Monday, is a row back on a row back. It is totally unrecognisable from the original proposals produced with the unions. Unrecognisable. Workers will see through this and mark this retreat after retreat as a betrayal. This new document is turning what was a real new deal for workers into a charter for bad bosses. Labour don't want a law against fire and rehire and they are effectively ripping up the promise of legislation on a new deal for workers in its first 100 days.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman will be coming back to the motion before us.
David Linden
I am very happy to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am talking on employment legislation, which I believe is germane to this debate.
Unite’s general secretary goes on to say:
“Instead, we have codes of conduct and pledges of consultation with big business. Likewise, the proposal to legislate against zero hours contracts is watered down to almost nothing…In truth this new document is not worthy of discussion. All unions must now demand that Labour changes course and puts the original New Deal for Workers back on the table.”
That was a warning shot to the Labour party that it, too, must be more ambitious and not leave the task of protecting workers’ rights to the valiant efforts of Back-Bench MPs who happen to be lucky in the private Members’ Bill draw.
I am sure that you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will draw my remarks to a close, and say, yes, the measures before us today have the potential to put up to £200 million a year back into the pockets of hospitality staff and could benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and service sectors.
That is a legislative achievement to be rightly celebrated in this place but it comes against a backdrop of increasing legislation that restricts the rights of trade unions to exercise functions of collective bargaining. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UK now has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe—something that has worsened over the past decade. Workers deserve better, and today is another baby step to improving things, but it largely goes against the grain of Westminster policy formulation when it comes to workers’ rights. And it is frankly little wonder that the Labour movement in Scotland, so ably represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has now concluded that legislative competence for employment law should be devolved to Scottish Ministers. Failure to do so—be that by Labour or the Tories—will lead Scots to conclude one thing and one thing only: that Westminster is not working for working people.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I am delighted to be speaking on the day that this code of practice is approved by this House.
When I took over the sponsorship of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, a private Member’s Bill due to his promotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell)—a champion for Watford—I knew just how important it would be to the pockets of millions of people across the UK, particularly in my constituency.
The Bill is about fairness and transparency. It is about reducing discrimination and it is about creating a level playing field for businesses. Importantly, the code will enable disputes to be resolved quickly and fairly. Some 8% of people in the UK work in the tourism sector. That rises to 11% in Wales and a whopping 18% on Ynys Môn—that is right, almost one in five is employed in the tourism and hospitality sector in my constituency of Ynys Môn.
If, as is estimated, workers in the sector will receive an average £200 per year more in their pockets, then a rough calculation suggests that this measure alone could generate around £900,000 for workers across Ynys Môn annually. As someone who financed my A-level and university studies by waitressing, I know at first hand how important tips are.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Bill is not a new nuclear power station or a freeport, but it is significant to local workers and families struggling with the cost of living. I have to say that those working in hospitality and tourism on Anglesey are a fantastic bunch and are dedicated to supporting our local communities in so many ways.
The team in the Oystercatcher in Rhosneigr are working with community champion Sue Gillett to help raise funds for Mirili Môn as part of Dementia Week this Thursday. At Catch 22 in Valley, Neil, Mel and the team support local farmers through their farmers markets. The Driftwood in Trearddur Bay hosts fabulous quizzes to raise funds for local community groups such as the Scouts, the SSAFA, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. And Dave and Amanda Jones from Anglesey Fishing Trips do so much to reach out to tourists and to our local community.
There are so many fantastic people and communities that will benefit from this measure, particularly those on Ynys Môn, and I am proud to see that, with the approval of this code of practice, this legislation is moving another step closer.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate in which we are seeking to ensure that the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips is approved.
I will turn now to the specific issues raised. The shadow Minister talked about engaging with the sector, which is very important. I can tell him that we engage regularly with organisations such as UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping on these matters and have been doing so for many months, as we want to make sure that their views are heard. The non-statutory guidance that we will be bringing forward should provide more help for those organisations to comply with the important provisions of this legislation.
The shadow Minister asked whether we would review the policy on a regular basis. We will obviously keep all these matters under review, and the guidance should help to inform the sector about requirements in terms of both employees and businesses. It is hugely important that we do so. He asked whether a person could take a claim forward to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Clearly, employment tribunals are there to ensure that workers can assert their rights if they feel that their rights have not been respected, so we would definitely expect an employment tribunal to hear such a case.
The shadow Minister asked about tipping by digital apps. We see this as a new phenomenon and an interesting development, enabling the customer to be able to tip an individual using an app, QR code or whatever, and we will not stand in the way of that. Where a tip has been given directly to a member of staff, it is clear that that tip should be kept by the member of staff. The app is there to allow flexibility in the implementation of the code or the guidance, rather than allowing businesses to avoid their clear obligations.
The shadow Minister asked about payments and why they are paid the following month. I think it is reasonable to allow a business to be able to calculate the amount of tips that are received in a month and then pay those out to workers in the month following. We think that that is a reasonable balance to strike. He asks why we are taking another five months to put this legislation in place. Clearly, we want to ensure two things—that we get this right and that we respect some of the pressures that exist in the hospitality sector, which has been through a difficult time, with increases in the national living wage, the cost of living crisis and the covid pandemic. We are trying to make sure that we take the sector with us, rather than impose unfair new burdens on it. We do not think that these measures are unfair, because we know that the majority of businesses would adopt these kind of rules even without this legislation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) seemed to imply that we on the Conservative Benches were going to use Brexit to improve workers’ rights. I am always keen to improve workers’ rights, and we have done so in this Parliament, but I remember his party clearly saying that Brexit would be a bonfire of workers’ rights and that certainly has not been the case.
David Linden
Does the Minister consider that workers’ rights have improved? If he does, why is it that trade union organisations across Europe recognise that the UK has some of the worst employment rights across Europe?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, those rights have got better. We have introduced legislation that covers the right to request flexible working, neonatal care leave, carers’ leave, protection to cover redundancy during pregnancy and return to work, the right to request predictable terms and conditions, the tipping Bill, and shared parental leave. All those things have been introduced, or supported, by this Government. We see those protections not as an opportunity to create a wedge issue, but as the right thing to do by our workers.
David Linden
Is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), did not relish the opportunity to bring forward the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, seeing it as a wedge issue that would cause trouble with the Labour party? Come on!
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a refrain that we constantly hear from the SNP. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did refer to ensuring that we worked alongside hospitality on the guidance, but apart from that, there was nothing in his remarks about the needs of business, and the legislation is about the needs of business. The strikes that affected this country, particularly at the end of last year and in the year before last, cost the hospitality sector around £3 billion. That is why we legislated as we did, and we feel it was the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect further on the needs of business as well as the needs of workers. We believe that there is a balance to be struck, and he has got that balance wrong in Scotland. Hon. Members need not listen to me; just look at the numbers. The most recent figures for economic growth in Scotland over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021 show Scotland’s cumulative GDP growth at 7.2%, England’s at 14.9% and the whole of the UK’s at 12.9%. SNP MPs would do better to go back to their nation and constituency and drive economic progress forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who has done such good work in this area, talks about fairness. I know he stands up for fairness, and for Watford; I have seen the amazing montages of all the times that he has mentioned Watford in this Chamber. He deserves plaudits for his work. He says that he was lucky, but as the great Gary Player said, the harder you work, the luckier you get. The success that my hon. Friend has been an instigator of today is due to his hard work and determination. He talks about what we have done on communications, working with employer groups, employee groups and the hospitality sector. Yes, we do that—we work with trade unions, ACAS, UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping and others to ensure that the code of practice and the guidance that will follow will leave them fully cognisant of the requirements on the sector—a sector that is so important to our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said he does not like giving tips. He is free not to give a tip if he does not feel it is appropriate, but most people would say that for good service, they would be prepared to provide a tip. The key point of this legislation is that that tip should be retained by the individuals who provided the service.
James Gray
May I correct the impression my hon. Friend has given of what I said? I did not say that I do not like giving tips. I like giving tips—I am quite a generous tipper, I think. However, I wish I did not have to. I wish people were paid enough to make tips unnecessary. That was the point I was making.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, we have increased the national minimum wage by record amounts this year to try to make sure that people get paid enough. It did surprise me to think that he would not be a generous tipper, because he has been generous in all my interactions with him.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about her constituents and the benefits that the code will bring—£900,000 in her constituency, I think she said. She does a great job for her constituents. I must say that my daughters are both pretty pleased with the code as well, as they both work in local establishments.
When the code and other provisions on tipping come into force in October, we will right a wrong and ensure that tip money goes where it should: to the workers who provided the service. We will continue to monitor the operation of the code and the major industries that it covers, and we will not hesitate to amend it—with parliamentary approval, of course—if necessary. I can also confirm that additional, non-statutory guidance will be published before the code comes into force, to provide further background and help employers to remain compliant with the requirement. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to War Graves Week not later than 7.00pm or not later than three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) and provisions of Standing Order No. 9(3) relating to motions that this House has considered a specified matter shall not apply.—(Mr Gagan Mohindra.)
War Graves Week
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered War Graves Week.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does extraordinary work keeping alive the memories of the 1.7 million men and women who gave their life in the service of our country and the Commonwealth in both world wars. It tends to and maintains graves, memorials and sites at 23,000 locations in 153 countries around the world, from single graves to the largest cemetery at Tyne Cot, near Passchendaele, where almost 12,000 of the fallen from the first world war are buried and remembered. Among the 300,000-plus total casualties of Passchendaele was 20-year-old James Leaning, a private with the Hertfordshire Regiment. He was tragically killed on the first day of the battle, and is buried at the Menin Gate memorial in Ypres, which is lovingly maintained by the commission.
Beyond concerning itself with the neat-cut grass, the flower beds, and the mind-blowing numbers—row upon row—of pristine headstones, and of names on memorial walls, the Commonwealth War Grave Commission does even more extraordinary and priceless work to remind every generation about the service and sacrifice of those who died to forge our freedoms, and about the gargantuan human cost of war. We celebrate the commission’s work during Commonwealth War Grave Week, but I know that Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing our appreciation for what it does to keep the flame of remembrance burning 365 days a year.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
It is a great honour to have the Commonwealth War Graves Commission headquartered in my constituency. Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, I am sure that he will join me in thanking not only the staff based in Maidenhead, but those around the world who manage and maintain war graves—often in very difficult circumstances, in countries where other conflicts are taking place—so that the families of those who have fallen know that the sacrifice of their loved one is appropriately recognised.
Grant Shapps
I very warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s contribution, and I join her in thanking her constituents at head office in Maidenhead for all the work that they do—often, as she rightly says, in incredibly difficult and sometimes conflict-live locations around the world.
I am sure that Members will join me in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work as serving commissioners. I take my role as chair of the commissioners, and the Ministry of Defence’s long running relationship with the commission, extremely seriously. The Government provide nearly 80% of the commission’s budget—around £55 million each year—and the other member Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa together provide the remaining 20%, in direct correlation to the numbers of each nationality commemorated.
An important part of the commission’s work is to continue the search to identify all those who gave their life but have yet to be commemorated, and to tell the stories behind the names carved on headstones and memorials.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On the point about updating graves, over the Easter recess, I met people from the Spitfire AA810 project, which aims to improve our understanding of the work undertaken by pilots in the photographic reconnaissance unit. One of the project’s major tasks is learning who was part of the unit, as there is no complete listing of those who served in Royal Air Force photo reconnaissance during world war two. It has identified around 420 British casualties among those who served, as well as pilots from across the Commonwealth. Does the Minister agree that we should ensure that war graves and other memorials—perhaps one to those Spitfire pilots—are updated and expanded as we find out more?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A feature of the fog of war, but also of record-keeping at the time and in the many years that have passed since, is that it is sometimes difficult to piece things back together. We in this House all appreciate the efforts of the commission and the importance of ensuring that we recognise every single name whenever new information comes to light.
The commission is playing a central role in the Government’s D-day 80 commemorations, including by bringing the generations together through its Legacy of Liberation torch relay. That torch was passed on by the Prime Minister earlier today at Horse Guards. I was there, and was delighted to host that relay, which will end with young people passing the flame to veterans at the commission’s Bayeux cemetery on D-day.
The commission’s war cemetery sites include one in Gaza, an active war location. This point has been discussed before, and I am pleased to be able to share with the House some news that has emerged, despite the very dire humanitarian situation on the ground. I was recently asked to help with the safe passage of Commonwealth War Graves Commission staff out of Gaza, and I am heartened to confirm that just last week, five of the commission’s six staff who wanted to leave made it safely to Egypt, along with their immediate families, where they will join the commission’s in-country staff until it is safe for them to return.
Like any large organisation in inflationary times, the commission faces and has faced significant budgetary challenges, as well as costs associated with its ageing sites, many of which were not built with any kind of longevity in mind. It has also had to adapt its sites to the impact of changing weather and climates. In recent years, the Ministry of Defence has worked closely with the commission to develop a new strategy to help tackle those challenges sufficiently, which includes working to make sure that the commission remains both relevant and affordable in the years ahead. As a consequence of that work, the commission put forward a bid to its member Governments for a temporary uplift in funding over three years. I am pleased to tell the House that I approved that bid earlier this year, in order to ensure that the commission can overcome the challenges it faces and continue to preserve its sites, which are such a tangible and important touchstone for our nation’s history, and such an important part of the story of our national life. I was pleased to be able to provide an uplift of £2.6 million a year over the next three years, and I am also pleased to report that the sum was matched in the normal proportions by our partner Governments.
Without the extraordinary work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, memories of all the sacrifices made—all the work, effort, blood and toil, without which the freedoms that we have today would not exist—might start to fade. This morning, I met a 99-year-old gentleman who fought in the second world war. Although he was still quite sharp, his frailty reminded me of how easily those memories could slip from the public’s consciousness. Stories of the service and sacrifice of many from all parts of the United Kingdom and all over the Commonwealth will later simply not be able to be told first hand in the way that he told me this morning about his experience during the war. Vital lessons about the fragility of freedom and democracy and the need to cherish and nurture them, to stand up for them, and for allies to sometimes come together and fight and die for them, might also fade.
History has so much to teach us, but only if we can access it. Stories of service and sacrifice—such as that of 20-year-old James Leaning, the private from my home county of Hertfordshire, whom I described at the beginning of my comments—have so many lessons for future generations, but only if we preserve and cherish them, and pass them on. That is why we must always support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the extraordinary work that it does.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly as we approach the 80th anniversary of D-day in June and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s Legacy of Liberation campaign. I look forward to contributions from Members on all sides of the House in this debate. During War Graves Week, as always, we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect others and the freedoms that we enjoy today. It is our duty to tell their stories and to honour their service.
I begin by echoing and joining the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its staff not only in the UK, but around the world. Our war graves and memorials must be properly protected, cared for and respected. For over a century, the commission has done so much at home and abroad to honour the men and women of the UK and the Commonwealth who lost their lives in the two world wars. Thanks to the commission’s work, sites of remembrance for 1.7 million individuals are properly cared for. It is the custodian of our shared global history as well as of our local history.
I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work as commissioners, representing Parliament on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I think their work reminds us of the genuine cross-party support that the commission enjoys and will continue to enjoy.
In my home city of Plymouth, our shared history is told by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at a number of cemeteries, including Weston Mill, Efford, Ford Park and the Plymouth naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe. That naval memorial, where I know a number of Members from both sides have attended services, remembers all those lost at sea. This year, we remember the 70th anniversary of the unveiling by Princess Margaret of the extension for those we lost in world war two. I pay tribute to the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission who keep that memorial, and all memorials at home and abroad, in such a proud and decent condition. Each name on the war memorial was a person with a family, hopes and dreams, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.
One particular cemetery that sticks in my mind is not run by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is a war grave in Wantage gardens on North Road West in Plymouth, which has the headstones of child sailors to tell their story. It is called the No Place memorial, and it is a memorial for Plymouth’s fallen heroes. It is a small graveyard, and many of those it remembers were 15, 16 or 17 when they died. One of them, Edward Pike, was just 15 when he died on 16 November 1894 on HMS Lion. Through that memorial, we keep the flame of their memory alive, and what strikes me most about that memorial is their ranks. All the ranks of those who died are on the memorial, and Edward’s rank was “Boy”. Telling his story and telling the story of all the other people alongside him in that cemetery is a way of not only remembering that sacrifice, but keeping that flame alive, as well as the reasons that he and others went to sea.
As someone who represents a naval city, I had the privilege of attending the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire for the unveiling of the submariner memorial in 2022. Almost 6,000 submariners have lost their lives in the 120 years since the submarine service was formed, and as the son of a submariner, this is particularly close to my heart. I thank the staff of the National Memorial Arboretum for all they do. They welcome 300,000 visitors a year to their 400 memorials, including over 20,000 young people. Just as we on both sides encourage Members to join the armed forces parliamentary scheme, may I encourage them to go to the National Memorial Arboretum? It is a profoundly moving place to remember people who have given the ultimate sacrifice.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am glad the hon. Member is so proud of the National Arboretum Memorial at Alrewas. He may not know—the House may not know—that Mr Speaker is currently considering the possibility of having a parliamentary memorial there. I have been on the committee considering it, and we are very nearly at the stage of recommending one particular stone to the Speaker. I hope that Members will very soon be able to go to the National Arboretum Memorial and see a memorial to parliamentarians who gave their lives.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I think that telling our story, and telling the story of all those who served and gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy, is time well spent. For anyone who has not been to the National Memorial Arboretum, it is a visit worth paying to hear the stories and to see the way in which different units from different parts of our armed forces remember those who fell in different ways. It really is a very special place.
It is vital that we support the efforts of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to reach out to communities, particularly to engage with younger generations to pass on our history as the world wars recede further into the past. We commend the commission for making education and outreach a key priority in its latest—very good—strategy. I am reminded of the fantastic interactive events organised for young people in Plymouth for the 80th anniversary of the Blitz, as well as tours and talks across the country during this War Graves Week. I also encourage Members to share the library of free learning resources on the commission website, including guides on how to research relatives and other Commonwealth casualties. Looking forward to the future, I welcome the commission’s strategy towards 2039, not least for the serious thought that has been given to how to engage young people with new technology in a digital age.
As we mark War Graves Week, we must recognise and honour fully the regiments and the troops drawn from across the Commonwealth, from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, and remember the great contributions and sacrifice from so many of them that helped forge modern Britain and the freedoms we enjoy today. As the Commonwealth War Graves Commission found in its 2021 report on the historical inequalities in commemoration, an estimated 45,000 to 54,000 casualties, predominantly Indian, east and west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel, are or were commemorated unequally. I want to praise the work of our shadow Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who spoke out about this in his documentary “The Unremembered” in 2019 to make the case that everyone who served in our military, regardless of background and where they came from, should be remembered for the sacrifice they made.
Finally, I make one further point. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does superb work and remembers people whose graves are on land but its remit does not extend to those who died at sea. As Devonport’s MP and coming from a naval family, I want to place it on record that those who died at sea and have no resting place other than the ocean should also be remembered in War Graves Week.
In 2018 I raised concerns about the second world war wrecks in the east Java sea, in particular HMS Exeter, a Devonport-based world war two heavy cruiser that had been looted and scavenged. As a war grave, HMS Exeter —and indeed HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Electra, HMS Encounter, and Australian and Dutch ships that went down in the battle with the Japanese navy there —should be a final place of rest, but those ships have been scavenged and in the case of HMS Exeter almost completely removed from the seabed.
James Gray
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about these ships that went down just off Indonesia; some 4,800 people died on board and they are not commemorated at the site of their death at all—they are the only service people who are not. The same incidentally applies to those who died in Dogger Bank, where minerals are now being lifted out, greatly risking interfering with the people who terribly sadly died there. There is an argument for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to at least consider looking again at war graves at sea.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention and the way in which the hon. Gentleman remembers those who died in the Dogger Bank.
In 2008 HMS Kent placed a memorial next to where HMS Exeter went down. There are ways of remembering those who died at sea as well as protecting wrecks. We could look at how our allies, the United States of America, Australia and the Netherlands for example, do things slightly differently. But we should be making the case that the stories of all should be told regardless of whether they died on land or at sea and that there is a place for that. We are seeing that in the debates around war graves; it is a really important aspect of this that we remember these people, and the war memorial I spoke about on Plymouth Hoe remembers those who died at sea as well as on land. It is important we remember all of them.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On that point, the House is aware of my interest in marine archaeology. I have asked Ministers this question repeatedly, and I think they are correct in saying that the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 afford protection to those lost at sea.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. I am not certain that this is the precise moment when I should be going into the finer details of wreck protection and the debate around that, but certainly in War Graves Week we need to be telling the stories of all who served and all who died, and that is an important part of what the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and other groups are doing. It is worth placing on record our recognition of that work in this debate.
Today and always we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect others. Service in our armed forces is the ultimate public service. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission helps strengthen the bond between those who serve and the country they serve to protect. Labour is fully committed to building on this if given the opportunity of being in government later this year.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a great honour to take part in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and I welcome his support for the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the remarks that he made. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the chairman of the commission—and congratulate him on wearing the newly designed corporate tie. I particularly thank him, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for providing Government time for this debate on such an important topic.
I am also deeply honoured to be one of the two serving parliamentary commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I look forward to the comments from my other commissioner, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), shortly. Having parliamentary representation on the commission marks a tradition going back to the origins of the commission, more than 100 years ago.
Our debate comes in the midst of War Graves Week but is also a timely reflection of the events in June to commemorate the liberation of Europe with the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. Many of our constituents and many in this House will have had forebears, including parents, who served during world war two. Last autumn, I visited Salerno in Italy, where Commonwealth and American forces landed to form a beachhead on the European mainland in late 1943. More than 1,800 servicemen are commemorated there. It was a particularly poignant trip for me, since my grandfather won his military cross there with the Commandos, and my father-in-law wrote an account of the landing for the liberation of Italy. Reverting to the Normandy landings, my wife’s cousin led the Special Service Brigade, which took the Pegasus Bridge, accompanied by his brigade piper. More locally, one of my predecessors as MP for Ludlow, Lieutenant-Colonel Uvedale Corbett, won the distinguished service order for his actions during the Normandy landings and breakout.
All of us will have connections to those who served during the second world war, so the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission should be important to us all. The commission cares for some 23,000 war memorials and cemeteries across 153 countries and territories around the globe, helping us all to honour and commemorate the 1.7 million Commonwealth servicemen and women who lost their life through war. Few experiences are more moving or evocative than visiting any of our battlefield cemeteries and seeing the ranks of the iconic headstones that mark the graves of the fallen, so magnificently maintained by the dedicated commission staff. In reality, the work of the commission spans much more than even that.
Along with the wide range of the commission’s historic preservation of world-class monuments and millions of headstones, it also has world-class expertise in horticulture and the research and record management that goes into sustaining our database of millions of casualties. Another of its most moving and impressive roles is in the continuing recovery, forensic identification and respectful reburial of the remains of the fallen, where possible with military honours. That still goes on, month in, month out. During War Graves Week, we can all take time—I urge colleagues across the House to do so—to visit sites in each of our constituencies.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Yesterday I visited Llandingat cemetery at the church in Llandovery, where there are several Commonwealth graves. I worked with Ryan Jones, who is a volunteer with the commission. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the volunteers for their work in places such as Carmarthenshire looking after these graves?
Philip Dunne
I am delighted to, and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts one of the comments I will make. He is absolutely right, and the volunteering element to preserving the quality of the headstones is a relatively recent phenomenon. I am sure we will touch on that in a few moments. There is plenty of scope to add more volunteers. Indeed, many Members might want to consider volunteering to maintain gravestones in their own constituencies.
In south Shropshire, more than 200 casualties from world war one and world war two are buried at 74 locations across the Ludlow constituency, with more than 30 commemorated at Bridgnorth cemetery, the largest site in the constituency. Like the hon. Member, I paid my respects at one of those sites last Saturday, in the deconsecrated churchyard of St Leonards in Ludlow, where volunteers help keep the war graves in as reasonable order as possible in a churchyard that is no longer active. War Graves Week, inaugurated only in 2021, stands as a good opportunity to highlight all the work that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does around the world, none of which would be possible without both our generous member nation funders and, of course, our amazing staff and volunteers.
With my wider interest in the environment, I would like to touch briefly on the commission’s work from a sustainability and horticultural perspective. There can be few organisations in the world with a responsibility for sustaining the environment with such a diverse global footprint, managing sites in all climates, at various elevations, and with one of the widest ranges of flora and fauna. Horticulturalists working for the commission care for many native plant species in our sites across the world. While that means that the commission is a curator with exceptional knowledge about those plants, we are also very much challenged by global climate change. The commission has committed to achieve net zero by 2050 and is utilising new approaches to horticulture and memorial maintenance to reflect the changing climate while reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides as well as fossil fuels.
I place on record my thanks as a member of the commission’s audit committee to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. As he mentioned in his opening speech, as chairman of the Commission he showed real leadership earlier this year in securing a three-year funding settlement from donor nations, led by the Ministry of Defence. We are extremely grateful to him for that, not least because that provides certainty of funding to continue the commission’s fine work through the inevitable uncertainty of a general election and a potential spending review.
Of course, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work is not immune from the impact of war today. Sadly, many of the places in which the commission looks after war memorials and cemeteries suffer from the instability and repercussions of conflict. Our sites in Gaza have been no exception. I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the work of many people both here in the UK and in our high commissions in the region in helping to ensure the safe evacuation of our staff and their families. Unfortunately, our restoration work on site will have to wait while access remains impossible due to the war.
We face similar challenges in securing safe access to our cemeteries in some other places, currently including Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Sudan, but our commitment to those sites is undiminished. I know that we will return to carry out our important work as soon as conditions allow.
In three weeks, we will be marking the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. This is an important opportunity to remember the contribution of UK and Commonwealth soldiers in the liberation of Europe from the Nazis and to encourage the next generation to take up responsibility for remembrance. Since this may well be the last significant milestone commemoration of the D-day landings attended by veterans of the campaign, it is a particularly poignant commemoration. It also highlights just how important it is that younger generations take up the mantle of remembrance. The commission has therefore placed a great emphasis on involving schoolchildren in the major programme of events in both the UK and France on 5 and 6 June involving veterans, serving personnel and children. Normandy, where the commission maintains 116 cemeteries and memorials that mark the graves of 25,000 fallen service personnel, will of course be the centre point of the commemorations.
The commission, recognising the need to maintain our relevance to future generations, has spent much of the last year looking further ahead at developing its strategy towards 2039, as both opening speeches referred to. That sets a clear path to the 100th anniversary of world war two, increasing our collaboration with parallel organisations in other countries both to foster reconciliation between former adversaries and to inform younger generations about the human cost of war. That is all the more poignant and relevant given that the first state-on-state war at scale since 1945 is going on in Europe right now.
As we move beyond lifetime memory of the world wars, the environment in which the commission does its work is changing. Younger generations are not as directly or personally connected as older generations to world war one and world war two. Clearly, that represents a challenge, but it is also the true test of our commitment to honour the fallen—one that I hope future generations will meet, just as previous generations have.
I thank all Members here today for their support for War Graves Week and for the important work that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission undertakes around the world. The serried ranks of gravestones, so well maintained by the commission, leave a clear impression on all who see them of the sacrifice of the fallen around the world. They serve as a reminder to us all of the immense human cost of war, and that the legacy of those who gave their lives depends on facing down the resurgent threats to global stability that we face today.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). The Scottish National party proudly supports the valuable work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in its efforts to ensure that those who died in service as a result of conflict are commemorated. It is vital that we preserve the memories of the members of our armed services and those of Commonwealth countries who answered the call to serve in numerous conflicts across the globe, and who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which maintains, manages and preserves war graves in more than 23,000 locations in 150 countries, and more than 1.1 million headstones across the world.
The War Graves Commission offers a wonderfully unique service to enable people to identify family members who have been killed in conflicts, and to locate their last resting place, memorial or headstone. I have benefited from that by being able to identify my great uncle, Corporal William Dorans, who in 1914 was an Army reservist and was called to the colours on the outbreak of war, and served in the 1st Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers. It was one of the first British battalions to be deployed in Belgium to stop the German advance into that country. It was immediately posted to the frontline, on the Ypres salient, and took part in the first battle of Ypres against the German army, involving both offensive and defensive actions, including bombardments and brutal hand-to-hand fighting, which resulted in thousands of casualties on both sides.
On 13 November 1914, Corporal Dorans was sadly officially reported missing in action and believed dead. His body was never recovered from the quagmire that was the battlefield. He is commemorated with honour at the Ypres Menin Gate memorial, along with more than 54,580 other servicemen from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries killed in that area who have no known graves. I visited Menin Gate a few years ago to pay my respects to my great uncle and all other members of the armed forces who gave their lives for their country. I was moved by the tribute that takes place under the Menin Gate arches at 8 o’clock every night, by the buglers of the Last Post Association, who sound the “Last Post” as a unique homage to all those who lost their lives. That tradition has taken place continuously since 1928, on more than 33,000 occasions.
I also took the opportunity to visit Tyne Cot cemetery, which has almost 12,000 graves of British and Commonwealth soldiers and a number of smaller grave sites, which are immaculately maintained and presented by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The enormity of the scale and numbers of those killed can only be appreciated by a visit to these graveyards. It is a very emotional experience.
Closer to home, I commend and bring to the attention of the House the work of the Girvan and District Great War Project. It was established in 2013 by a couple, Lorna and Ritchie Conaghan, both unpaid volunteers, initially to research and identify local men who left the area to go to war and never returned. Through their tremendous efforts researching, identifying and recording at least 450 local men, wherever possible they have produced individual service records for each of the men, which are available to their families as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. They included a number who had not previously been commemorated on local war memorials, including the local men who had lost their lives in the armed forces while serving in the armies of Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada. It is absolutely fabulous, and it has also initiated numerous other local projects, including the erection of memorial benches, exhibitions of wartime uniforms and weapons, and a memorial wildflower garden. It involves local children in various projects, including the production of brightly painted poppy stones placed on the graves of those who died in wars to enable easy identification by people walking through the cemetery—what a fabulous idea. In addition, it works to keep alive the memory of non-Commonwealth personnel and those killed during times of war with a connection to Girvan. I will give just one example, although there are several.
On 4 November 1917, a French merchant ship, the SS Longwy, was torpedoed 20 miles off the coast of Girvan, in my constituency, with the loss of 31 lives. Three of the bodies washed up ashore along the coastline near Girvan and were then buried in the town’s Doune cemetery. The other 28 French sailors remain in their underwater tomb without commemoration, other than the three simple crosses marking the graves of the men who were washed ashore. There is, as yet, no memorial to the remainder of the crew, either in France or here in Scotland. I am pleased to say that following significant fundraising activities both in Scotland and in France, £12,000 has been raised to erect a permanent memorial overlooking the sea in memory of all 31 sailors who were killed. Work starts on the creation of a memorial this week, which will be completed by October this year.
One group of people who died during the world wars and are often overlooked are those who served in the merchant navy. In August last year, I was privileged to attend a ceremony in Girvan to unveil a new memorial to commemorate merchant seamen born locally who died at sea while serving their country. New memorials such as this also commemorate all those who died at sea with no known grave and remind us of the vital contribution of the merchant navy in times of conflict.
The best way we can preserve the legacy of war graves, keeping the memorials relevant and meaningful for future generations, and commemorating the sacrifice made by so many, is without doubt through education. Just a month ago, Claire Horton CBE, director general of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, said:
“We are at an undeniable turning point for the legacy of commemoration. This year’s landmark anniversary may be the final major commemoration attended by veterans of D-Day, and as such represents a unique opportunity to pass on the torch of commemoration from the generation who fought in the two World Wars and ensure commemoration of their legacy endures for generations to come. As we look to the future, better education must play a vital role in ensuring that the lessons of the First and Second World War are remembered, and that the importance of commemoration is understood by everyone, whether they have a direct and personal connection to the World Wars or not. Our mission is for the legacy of those who died fighting for our freedoms to inspire a world free from conflict.”
I could not agree more. Education is the key, and the importance of every generation knowing the cost of war in lives lost is central.
Finally, to raise awareness and help with the preservation of memories in out-of-the-way parts of towns and villages, and to put them fully into the public arena where all, especially our children, can see and feel them, we might every year project names on to the walls of public buildings to great effect, as happened on the walls of the Scottish Parliament in May 2020. That could be done relatively easily and replicated across the country, similar to the poppies displayed on the Elizabeth Tower during Remembrance Day last year.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a wonderful organisation fully deserving of continued financial support from the Government and the support of the public through donations to enable it to keep alive the memory of the sacrifice of the millions of men and women who laid down their lives for their country. We must also continue the commemoration of Remembrance Sunday, and wear our poppies with pride in November every year to remember those who have gone before us and did not return home. The best and most effective way of ensuring that these memories are not lost is to educate, which needs to be done in a manner that is accessible and relevant to children so that they can recognise the sacrifice made by so many to enable us to enjoy the precious freedoms that we have today.
Let me end by quoting two lines of a poem with which all Members will be familiar:
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity not only to hear the erudite words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), but to thank him and the other members of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all their work. I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) very shortly. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), who spoke so movingly about his great-uncle, Corporal Dorans. I am glad that he mentioned the daily commemoration at the Menin Gate. It barely let up until the second world war and resumed as soon as the opportunity was available, and it is wonderful that it continues to this day.
As the hon. Gentleman said—and, indeed, as was said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—this is an issue on which the whole House will stand united, and it is sobering to think that previous generations stood here united in grief. We are surrounded by the commemorations of Members who fell in the wars, and elsewhere in this place are commemorated the sons and daughters of Members—including the sons of the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, and the then leader of the Labour party, Arthur Henderson, who were killed on the same day in the battle of Loos in 1915.
The scale of the loss in this country and across what was then the empire required a response like no other. It was the hardest of all tasks. How could anyone rise to the challenge of fittingly remembering so many, with different faiths and different traditions, and from so many corners of the earth? The extraordinary legacy of those—including Lutyens, Kenyon, Ware, Baker and Kipling—who applied themselves to that vital work, most of them carrying their own personal grief, lives on. No commemoration could ever be equal to that conflict or those that followed, but it did its best, on behalf of this nation, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the whole Commonwealth, to remember the sacrifice of all and the sacrifice of every individual, embracing the principle of equality of commemoration. It is vital for us to embrace that principle, novel in its day, at every opportunity in remembering everyone who fell in common cause. In doing so, we must recognise as inexcusable—as did the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)— those occasions when in the past we fell short of that absolute principle.
The engraving that was ultimately not adopted but was initially intended to be inscribed around the Stone of Remembrance was taken from Ecclesiastes:
“Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.”
For the fact that where known graves exist, the bodies of those brave men and women do lie in peace and their names, whether commemorated on a memorial or on a gravestone, will be remembered for evermore, we owe an enormous debt to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), if we in this House could possibly thank every one of its 1,300 employees in each of the 200 languages that they speak between them, we would feel honoured to do so. For the work that they do to fulfil our sacred obligation—not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow mentioned, their work in continuing to uncover remains and bury them with due honour—they have our gratitude and respect.
During my research for this speech, I found it sobering to try to find the number of graves and, of course, to be reminded that that number grows year upon year. Every one of us, I am sure, will have stood before the Comme memorial with its 72,000 names, visited Tyne Cot with its 12,000 graves, and, sometimes even more poignantly, visited the quiet and small cemeteries scattered across Flanders fields. What makes them so poignant is the sheer scale of collective loss, with each individual headstone or name commemorating a person who loved and was loved. They are remembered by their loved ones in the briefest but most profound of epitaphs. How fitting it is that over 100 years since the war to end all wars, schoolchildren from our constituencies make annual pilgrimages to recognise and remember. It is moving indeed to see young people—barely younger than those who fell, and showing the same exuberance and love of life that those who died would once have claimed—falling silent as they recognise the enormity of just one cemetery, which is only one of the 23,000 cemeteries and memorials looked after by the CWGC.
Of course, the commission’s direct duties, or duties working for the MOD, stretch far beyond the western front. I have been immensely moved by the beautifully kept calmness of the cemetery in Singapore, the rising heat of dawn in the commission’s cemetery in New Delhi as we collectively commemorated Anzac Day, and the knowledge that in the blustery South Atlantic, the Falkland Islanders will, with love, protect and commemorate those buried above San Carlos Water, who gave everything for their liberation.
Nor do the responsibilities of the CWGC end with cemeteries. There are many individual graves in British churchyards where the fallen are remembered closer to home. The same is true of the solitary grave of Ronald Maxwell of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps, who was buried where he fell on 23 December 1941, aged 22, beside St John’s Cathedral in Hong Kong.
I was pleased to hear the words of the Secretary of State about his personal commitment to the three-year uplift in funding. The commission needs that assurance to ensure that remembrance is a living legacy for our nation, and I welcome it.
We are approaching the 80th anniversary of D-day—a date of specific significance for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which refers to it as the Legacy of Liberation 80. The commission is right to say that the 80th anniversary commemorations may mark a tipping point between first-hand memory and national memory, and that the role of education will be ever more important in the years to come. I would therefore like my last words in this debate to be not my own, but those of Robert Piper, late of the Royal Sussex Regiment and the Royal Signals. He is a 99-year-old Normandy veteran who joined up at the age of 15, and I am proud to have him as a constituent. He retains an excellent sense of humour. When advised by his doctor that he had bad news and that Robert had cancer, his response was to say, “I went to Normandy. What do you mean, bad news? Every day is a bonus.” Robert once said in our excellent local magazine, All About Horsham:
“I have returned to Europe and stood in the middle of cemeteries filled with hundreds of soldiers, and I ask myself the question—why them, not us?”
That is a question to which these cemeteries should always give rise, because it reminds us of our obligation to remember, to be thankful, and to try to be worthy of the sacrifices made.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), for the speech that he has just made. I agree with every word he said, and I thought he put it incredibly eloquently. I thank the Government for finding time for this debate, and I thank the Defence Secretary, who is obviously a very busy man, for opening the debate this afternoon.
I have the enormous privilege of representing Parliament on the commission, along with the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), whom I commend him for his excellent speech. I note that earlier we had in the Chamber one of the previous representatives on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), although he is not in his place at the moment. I know that he was incredibly well respected and still plays an important role on the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation, which is the charitable arm of the commission.
I am very keen to talk about the outstanding work that the commission does and the dedicated people around the world who work, on our behalf, on commemoration every day. As we know, this debate is all the more timely as we approach the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings, and with the commission’s Legacy of Liberation 80 campaign. We have already heard that the commission was established by royal charter in 1917. It is a global organisation caring for war graves and memorials at 23,000 locations in 153 countries and territories, including some of the most war-torn areas of the world—Gaza at the moment, unfortunately, as well as Libya, Somalia and many other places.
The Defence Secretary is the chair of the commission, and among the other commissioners are the high commissioners from Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa. They all help to oversee and, importantly, fund the organisation, and I think everyone is grateful for the funding settlement agreed in recent months by all the member Governments. I would also like to pay tribute to our current vice-chair, Peter Hudson, to the director general, Claire Horton, and to the president of the commission, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal.
The commission commemorates almost 1.7 million individuals, ensuring that Commonwealth men and women who died during the two world wars are commemorated in a manner befitting all that they gave to secure our freedom and our very survival. Of course, this history is personal to all of us who had family serving in these campaigns. I think back to my dad, Eric Johnson, who served in world war two in the Royal Navy on HMS Begum; my father-in-law, Victor Morton, who served on HMS Ramillies as it shelled enemy positions at 5.30 am on D-day to help make the landings possible; my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in a munitions factory in Cheshire; and my mother-in-law, Joyce Morton, who served in the WAAF at Bentley Priory in Stanmore—or, as it was better known at that time, Fighter Command. Thankfully, they all survived the second world war, but so many did not, and that is why it is so important for their families that we commemorate all those who lost their lives.
I represent a Hull constituency in East Yorkshire, an area that historically has made a great contribution to our armed forces, as I am reminded every time I walk along those ranks of Portland stone graves and see so many from the Yorkshire regiments. Of course, Hull’s civilian population was also on the frontline in the total war of world war two. Commemoration is important to me, to my constituents and, of course, to the nation. When I visited the Runnymede Air Forces Memorial, I was really moved to see the name of Hull’s own Amy Johnson. First Officer Amy Johnson was, as we all know, the first woman pilot to fly alone from Britain to Australia. She went missing in 1941 when flying on a mission over the Thames estuary for the Air Transport Auxiliary. Her body was never found, but her name is on that memorial at Runnymede.
I have been to many of the sites around the UK and Europe over the years, but I want to say a few words about a visit that I paid just last week while on a trip to Singapore with the Home Affairs Committee. In the heat of the afternoon, along with other MPs on the delegation I visited the Kranji war cemetery, where the commission’s regional manager, Dennis Shim, and his team do exemplary work. We laid a wreath and remembered the fallen. I want to pay tribute to Dennis and his team because during covid there were very strict regulations about access to the cemetery and it was unfortunately in quite a state when the gardeners were allowed back in to do their work. I have to say that it looked absolutely wonderful last week. It was a real tribute to the hard work of the gardeners and the commission.
We know that 4,461 Commonwealth casualties of the second world war are buried at Kranji, plus some from world war one, and the Singapore memorial at the site bears the names of 24,000 Commonwealth casualties who have no known grave. This of course includes a number of the prisoners of war involved in the construction of the notorious Burma-Thailand railway, known as the death railway. While our attention will be on Normandy this June, those who were involved in the far east campaign should of course be in our thoughts too. Kranji is just one example of the work of the commission, which has a global estate run by a multinational and multilingual workforce of about 1,300, the vast majority of whom are gardeners and stonemasons. They are incredibly skilled men and women. The gardeners I met in Kranji last week came from India and Bangladesh.
Since the commission’s establishment, we have constructed 2,500 war cemeteries and plots, erected headstones over graves and, where the remains are missing, inscribed the names of the dead on permanent memorials. More than 1 million burials are now commemorated at military and civil sites around the world, from Canada, Belgium and France to Ukraine, Georgia and Papua New Guinea. The workforce looks after these sites with dedication, and it is therefore only fitting that we look after the workforce with similar care. I was very relieved to hear of the safe evacuation to Egypt of the team working in Gaza, for which I again thank the Defence Secretary. Of course, many other commission sites face dangers from current conflicts around the world, and we need to have the commission’s staff in our mind and prayers.
The commission’s work has developed in recent years, as we focus on amending records, searching for missing names, building new memorials and addressing historical inequalities and injustices in commemoration. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and Professor Michèle Barrett, who brought the commission’s attention to some of the ways in which we have not commemorated as we should have done. A key principle, as the Chair of the Defence Committee said, is that all who fell must be remembered equally.
When we ask the public about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, they will of course talk about the cemeteries in northern France, Belgium or Italy, but we have an important job to do of commemorating those who fought but have not yet been properly acknowledged. As part of our non-commemorations work, we have, for example, recently begun construction of a memorial in Cape Town to honour some 1,700 black South Africans who fell while serving in Africa in world war one, and who have until now not been commemorated. Other parts of our non-commemorations work focuses on west Africa, Kenya, Egypt and India.
We also have a duty to ensure that our sites remain well visited, so that remembrance of the war dead continues, by creating information centres, volunteering opportunities and education programmes designed to engage and educate generations to come. I saw today that the Prime Minister handed the torch of liberation to veteran Peter Kent. The torch will now travel around the United Kingdom before travelling on to Normandy in time for the D-day events in France.
The commission’s Legacy of Liberation campaign presents a momentous opportunity to commemorate the 80th anniversary of pivotal world war two events, with a special emphasis on D-day and the momentous events that laid the foundations for a free Europe. The commission aims to create a renewed emphasis on the act of commemoration and the important work of bridging the past and present, ensuring that the stories of those who fell are passed on to younger generations. The public can also access interactive tours online of the commission’s key cemeteries, featuring stories from those in the battles, details of commission events and much more.
This debate takes place in War Graves Week, an annual event in May to draw attention to the commission’s work. The commission is organising 277 events and tours in over 160 locations across 15 countries worldwide, and I hope that Members will get involved in those in their constituency. Just like the work of the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, the commission’s work continues all year round, every year. That is why I encourage Members across the House, and of course the new Members sitting on these Benches within the next six months, to take an interest in the upkeep and the incredible history of the war graves in their constituency. They will find so many valuable lessons for the future, and much to be proud of.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Ind)
In late June and early July 1943, the allies in north Africa were preparing to invade Sicily, which would be the first piece of territory in Europe to be taken back from Nazi Germany. In 2nd Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, in the 50th Infantry Division, there were two good friends: Lieutenant David Cox, an Oxbridge graduate aged 23; and Peter Martin, then a Captain commanding A Company. One morning, David told Peter that he had a terrible and very vivid dream in which he learned that he was going to die in a place called Catania. He had never heard of it and neither had Peter. Peter reassured David that it was just a dream, and he should think no more about it.
Shortly thereafter, the Cheshires received their orders for Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. To his absolute horror, David learned that an objective of the 50th Infantry Division was a place called Catania—the very same name that he had dreamed about. It shocked him to the core, and of course he became seriously worried that he was going to die there.
In early July, the Cheshires landed at Jig Green beach, just south of Syracuse, in Sicily. The landings went well and not too much resistance was encountered. David was, of course, petrified by the premonition, and Peter repeatedly tried to reassure him that it was just a dream. About a week later, the Cheshires took part in taking Catania, and after some hard fighting, in which both officers played considerable part, the town was captured. With the town taken by the allies, Peter said to David that his worries had been unjustified and he should stop fretting. Naturally, David was massively relieved. The next day, 16 August, the battalion was tasked with moving through a minefield. David was the only officer with mine-clearing experience, and he led the effort to make a path through it. Tragically, a mine exploded as he was doing so and he was killed—how flipping awful!
That story came from my mentor, whom I met in 1969, when I, too, joined the Cheshires. By then, Peter was a major general and colonel of the regiment. I held him in huge regard, and he guided me as a very young officer. Peter never forgot David, and visited his grave in Sicily whenever he could. The words of the Reverend Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, Woodbine Willie, who won the Military Cross in the first world war, hold true:
“There are many kinds of sorrow
In this world of Love and Hate,
But there is no sterner sorrow
Than a soldier’s for his mate.”
I have used those words myself. David’s story inspired me to do the same and visit his grave, and I have been there several times in the last few years. I have a photograph with me, but I am not allowed to show it. [Interruption.] Okay, I will show it, Mr Deputy Speaker—here it is.
David’s grave is in the Catania Commonwealth war cemetery, which contains 2,135 burials from the second world war, 112 of them unidentified. It is in a beautiful location—I will let right hon. and hon. Members glance at the photo—with Mount Etna behind it, steaming away, an active volcano. It is a fabulous location. The cemetery, like most CWGC locations abroad, makes anyone that visits it feel humbled and filled with awe. Nothing can bring back the men buried there, but at least their memory is honoured properly. That might be of some solace to the families and friends of those who rest there.
However, I am slightly concerned about one aspect of the work of the CWGC: what appears to happen sometimes in our country. For instance, in south-east London, Hither Green cemetery contains over 200 war graves. The graves that are located together—more than 10—are looked after, but there are many more individual graves, such as that of Private Terence Adam, who was killed at Ballykelly in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1982. I was the incident commander when 11 soldiers, as well as six civilians, were murdered by the Irish National Liberation Army. Terence’s grave is on its own, but it is looked after by my friend and former Army colleague George Szwejkowski, who also personally cares for over 50 other graves in that cemetery. He is one of many more civilians volunteering to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said. George is accredited to the CWGC and tends those graves for no money, simply because he feels that the poor devils who lie underground there deserve to be hugely respected.
I am afraid that I have seen quite a few individual war graves in the UK that suffer from a lack of care. I know that solving that problem is difficult for the CWGC because its resources are finite. It does its best, and there is no easy solution. It is not the fault of the CWGC, but I wish there were a way for all graves of service personnel, wherever they are, to be kept to the normal excellent standards that the CWGC sets.
In summary, I pay huge tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I thank our two colleagues who are commissioners. The CWGC does its best to ensure that those of us who live today are reminded of those normally very young men, and sometimes young women, who lost everything before they had really started their adult life. Those people did a huge service for us; we are here because of them. I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for looking after them.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their service as commissioners on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I also wish to comment on the speeches of the right hon. Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin). The words that they have spoken today not only honoured the war dead, but showed a special passion and commitment to those people.
In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Beckenham who has seen sights that none of us in this place could possibly imagine. I want to place on record my thanks to him for what he has done for our armed forces, and for the service and commitment that he continues to give to them. I shadowed the right hon. Member for Horsham for three years. I heard many of his speeches, but none was as passionate or as dignified as the one that he has just given to the House, and he can be truly proud of those people that he spoke about today.
In debates such as this, I often feel full of regret. My grandfather has been dead now for 27 years. He served in the second world war for the Scottish Highlanders. I never got to sit down and ask him why a Welshman from the south Wales valleys found himself in the Scottish Highlanders during the second world war. But, like so many other people, he rarely talked about his experiences during the war.
It is interesting that we commemorate War Graves Week this week. I think of Harry Patch, the last fighting Tommy, who died some 15 years ago. If anybody wants to read about the brutality of war, they should read a passage from his book, “The Last Fighting Tommy”. He described finding a young lad from A Company, who had been ripped from his shoulder to his waist. He was beyond human help. His words were: “Shoot me”. But before Patch could get his revolver out to put the lad out of his misery, he died. His last words were simply, “Mother”. You cannot read those words and not realise that each and every one of those graves that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission upholds has a very personal human story. Even though many of them would have been dead now for hundreds of years, the fact is that they were once somebody’s wife, somebody’s husband, somebody’s lover, somebody’s brother, and they all will have personal stories.
People who know me know that I can often bore for Britain about football. My interest has always been in the 1960s and 1970s, but, over the past year, I have been very drawn to the Football Battalion, also known as the 17th Middlesex Regiment and the 23rd Middlesex Regiment, which recruited footballers and supporters to fight in world war one, where they fought in the Somme and Passchendaele. There are stories of people such as Walter Tull, the very first black man ever to command a company in the British Army. He joined the 17th Middlesex Regiment, but was invalided out for what we know today as post-traumatic stress disorder. He went back. He was commissioned as an officer for 23rd Middlesex Regiment. He died at the battle of the Somme on 25 March 1918, at the end of the war. His body was never recovered—even though his fellow goalkeeper from Leicester Fosse, Tom Billingham, tried to save him, he could not find his body. He is believed to be buried in the Somme somewhere. His name is commemorated with the 34,000 others at the memorial in northern France.
I also want to talk about two friends, Richard McFadden and William Jonas. They grew up together in Scotland. They were as close as brothers and were both strikers with Clapton Orient. McFadden ended up a company sergeant. When they were together in a trench under heavy shell fire, Jonas jumped out and said, “Good luck to my love and my wife, Mary Jane”, and handed something to McFadden. When McFadden opened his hand, he found a locket that Jonas wanted him to give to his wife. McFadden then wrote a letter back to Clapton Orient to tell them of their loss. By the time that letter was received, McFadden had joined Jonas. However, McFadden died in a field hospital and has a grave. That is why it is so vital that we uphold these graves. So many people who went to world war one are lying on those battlefields—nameless, no one knowing where they are—but they are commemorated by their families.
We are now reaching the very end of that world war two generation; someone who was 21 in 1945 would now be 98. Those of us who go to the remembrance services watch as they get older, with their walking sticks, their crutches and their wheelchairs, and see their dwindling numbers, but still they come. They come to honour their friends and comrades. Still they walk—but one day they will not be there. I hope that, just as we honoured Harry Patch when he passed away, the last fighting Tommy of this country, with 1,000 people coming to his funeral and the then Duchess of Cornwall attending, we will afford the same honours to whoever that last veteran of world war two is.
As we saw with the passing of the Queen in September 2022, there are very few of that generation left. We owe them a debt of honour, for we would not be standing in this seat of democracy if they had not gone out to fight, though it was not just what they did in world war two but what they did afterwards. Without complaint, they rolled up their sleeves and rebuilt this bomb-damaged country so that future generations could enjoy the freedoms they fought for. That is why it is vital that we have a commitment from the Government that we will remember them properly, and we will mark their passing in a way that is appropriate.
The other thing the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does, its most important work, is to fight against the very real threat of fake news and the challenging of archives and documents. Those who deny things that were supposed to have happened in the past will challenge documents, but when they are faced with memorials, when they have to stand at those graves, they cannot deny that those things happened. They cannot deny world war one, or world war two, or all the other disputes we were involved with. That is why the CWGC is vital.
As other hon. Members have said, our armed forces footprint is declining year by year. Young people do not have any connection any more with the armed forces. For example, as I have said, my grandfather was the last military man to serve in our family, and he would be over 100 now. It is vital that we ensure that schools and community groups are made aware of that sacrifice.
This has been an emotional debate, but also the House at its very best—we often say that, and we often overuse the words “courage” and “heroism” as though they are just words we plucked from the air. But as Harry Kane, the England captain, who does vital work as an ambassador for the Royal British Legion, said when talking about the football battalion, “One day you are just playing football and the next you are risking your life.” That brings home what those people went through.
I want to end with Harry Patch, who I find an inspiration. He said he was guided by the simple words of Moses, “Thou shalt not kill.” When he was faced with a German, he could not bring himself to kill that person, so he shot him in the shoulder. It is vital that we remember the horrors of war, that we pay tribute to those who went and fought for our armed services, and finally that we as a Government do something to honour them, so that we can all join together in an act of remembrance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to say, in my 32 years of history in this Parliament, I am hearing some of the finest speeches I have ever heard. Absolutely superb.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Until now, Mr Deputy Speaker! However, I wholly agree with you: we have had an afternoon of most magnificent speeches. One of the most notable features of them all is that they have brought to life the whole act of remembrance, not by grand gestures or huge strategic considerations, but by reference to very particular details: family members, local people, constituency events and stories from the days of our great wars. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—who are, symbolically, now sat together—both gave the most magnificent speeches. They were able to do so because they know those facts thanks to the huge work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Rather than trying to emulate the wonderfully moving speeches that we have heard, I want to contemplate for a moment what we are trying to do in this work, through the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Royal British Legion, and in our constituencies on Remembrance Sunday. It is absolutely right and proper that we pay due respect and honour to those who have given their lives for King and country. I attended nearly all of the 347 repatriations through Wootton Bassett. The people of the town stopped on 134 occasions to pay their respects to those dead bodies as they came down the high street, and I am glad that the name of the town was changed to Royal Wootton Bassett as a result. However, the people of the town were not making any kind of political comment in doing so. They were not saying that they supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we were going through at the time; they were not saying that they believed the Government or the Army were doing a good job. They were paying their respects to individuals who had given their lives under order.
It seems to me, then, that when we look at the wonders of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries across France and elsewhere around the world, and indeed here in the UK, it is not about the people who have tragically died, who will not benefit from the magnificence of the cemeteries. There are three reasons the cemeteries are so superb. One is to remind us—we who are left—of the awfulness of war. We need to realise, as we see the tens of thousands of bodies laid out in front of us, that that is the meaning of warfare, and that we must do all we can to stop and avoid it in future. It is a memorial to remind us all that warfare is a terrible thing.
Secondly, it is terribly important that we say to our serving soldiers, sailors and air people that if they pay the ultimate sacrifice and die in service, they will be properly remembered. For those who do what no normal citizen would be asked to do—closing with and seeking to kill the King’s enemy—it is important to know that if the worst happens, they will be properly commemorated and their family and friends will be able to visit their grave and know what they did. That is a second good reason why the CWGC work is so very important.
The third reason, which was mentioned a moment ago, is that families otherwise have nothing to latch on to. I saw many of them in Royal Wootton Basset. The families have nothing left. Very often, as in the first and second world wars, they do not even have a body left. Having a beautiful stone, designed by Lutyens, Baker and others, laid out in a wonderful cemetery, with superb flowers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made a good point about the flowers and plants that the CWGC specialises in—gives the family a focus. So many families in this country spend time going out to where their loved ones fell. It gives them a focus for their grief and to remember their fallen relations and friends. For those three reasons, the cemeteries are very important.
It is not just about the work of the CWGC, as I will touch on briefly. I am very proud of the fact that we have welcomed to the House on a large number of occasions returning brigades from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is important that we do that and pay tribute to those who give service to our armed services, but also that we remember those who have not come home with them. Some of the most poignant moments in those “welcome home” ceremonies over the years have been when the boys and girls in the parades remember those they have left behind. That is one of the most important things about those occasions. I am very glad that we are establishing a parliamentary remembrance stone at the National Arboretum—not far from your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very important that we should do that, and I am glad that Mr Speaker’s initiative is now being taken forward and will shortly become a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) referred to the plaques around the wall in the Chamber. My own predecessor, Captain Cazalet, who was killed in 1942 in the Sikorski crash in Gibraltar, is commemorated above the door behind the Speaker’s Chair. It is terribly important that we have that commemoration, not necessarily for the people who are commemorated, but so those who are left know that the same thing would happen for us if we were in that position. These things are terribly important, and it is right that we commemorate people in that way. If we believe that it is our sacred duty to remember and pay tribute to those who have died, and to think about the sacrifice they made and the awfulness of war, the way we do that is through the wonderful work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Many of the speakers this afternoon have spoken about the very large numbers of graves and graveyards around the world, including those in the United Kingdom. I will not repeat what those Members have said, but all my life—whether it be in Belgium, in the Falklands, or elsewhere around the world—I have been deeply moved by seeing those graveyards. Every time I go into one, I can hardly contain myself; they are so magnificent. I absolutely adore the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s cemeteries. It is terribly important that we honour our war dead so well—I fear that other nations do not do so in the same way. I am sometimes particularly disappointed, for example, by the Argentinian graveyards in the Falklands, which could do with some more work. Ours are simply superb. They are just magnificent, and I am therefore very glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to salute the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does a magnificent job in commemorating our war dead.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for battlefields and Commonwealth war graves. He does great work, and I commend him for the battlefield tours that he has led over the years. The most important moment of all those tours is when we visit the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I hope my right hon. Friend will carry on that work in future.
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. I therefore salute the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which commemorates that fact.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
As you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in this afternoon’s debate, and we are certainly hearing some great contributions from Members. I am very proud to be able to take part in this debate. The work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is very important to many people. It may not be an issue that constituents write to us about, but the value of the commission’s work—particularly to the ability of our constituents to visit war graves—is underestimated.
As has been said, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a global organisation that takes responsibility for the commemoration of more than 1.7 million casualties in over 23,000 locations in 153 different countries. In 2005, I travelled out of the Libyan desert, northwards along the coast road to Alexandria in Egypt, and myself and the only other Brit in our expedition insisted that we stop at El Alamein to visit the cemetery there. The others in our delegation could not understand why we insisted on doing so, and were amazed at our persistence in demanding that we did. There, 7,240 Commonwealth soldiers are interred at what is an incredible location: row upon row of stones alongside immaculate gardens, and a great credit to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
However, there are also Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves in this country. As a regular visitor to churchyards across the UK, it interests me to discover signs at the entrances that state that those churchyards contain grounds of Commonwealth war graves, and I always search out their locations. In the Hendon cemetery and crematorium, there are 69 Commonwealth burials from the first world war and 156 from the second world war. Those whose graves are not marked by headstones are named on two screen wall memorials close to the cross of sacrifice. There are an additional 14 casualties from the second world war named on those screen walls who were cremated in the adjoining crematorium, and there are two non-Commonwealth service burials and one non-world war burial in the care of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
A significant reason why I support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is that it provides a memorial not only to the dead, but for the living. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray). Losing any relative is difficult, but to do so in conflict, when it is sudden and usually violent, is particularly hard. My great-uncle was killed in the first world war in action at Upper Oosthoek farm near Ypres on 14 February 1915. His regiment, the 2nd Battalion East Surrey, was passing through the ruins of the farm buildings when heavy rifle and machine gun fire was directed at them and several men were hit.
Having recently returned from service in India, the replacement soldiers were ill equipped for the wind and rain that was falling. To compound their tragedy, the attack was at a significant disadvantage in that my great-uncle and his comrades were ordered to advance without firing, as the trenches on both flanks were held by British troops and, owing to a shortage of ammunition, there was no artillery support. However, the advance continued without hesitation, although several officers and men fell rapidly. The distance from the farm buildings to the objective trenches was about 500 yards. A hedgerow running north and south afforded some cover for the first 200 yards, but the last 300 yards lay over an open turnip field with deep clay soil. While struggling knee-deep in the mud across the field, A company was practically wiped out and C company, my great-uncle’s section, which was following in close support, fared little better. Of the whole attacking party, 35 were killed and 81 wounded, while five officers were killed and six wounded.
It is an honour today to be able to put on record the sacrifice that my great-uncle made because he has no known grave, and his relatives have never had an opportunity to commemorate him. However, he is included on the role of honour at Chertsey war memorial as Offord, JD—Joseph Dick—and on panel 34 at the Menin Gate in Belgium. He was just 23 years of age. I only know this information about my uncle and the attack from the work undertaken by my cousin Mark Offord in researching our shared genealogy, and I raise this as evidence of the importance of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
It is most appropriate for the Legacy of Liberation campaign to commemorate the 80th anniversaries of pivotal world war two events, with a special emphasis on D-day. This debate today is particularly poignant, as I watched the lighting of the torch at the Horse Guards Parade with Peter Kent, a veteran of D-day. I am also aware of the “Lighting Their Legacy” event on HMS Belfast earlier today, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and I presume by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I conclude by thanking both of them for their work as commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This is a role that Members undertake, and when people say that Members of Parliament are only in it for themselves, we should highlight that such work is conducted in a very quiet and dignified fashion, without fuss and fanfare. On behalf of my great-uncle Joseph Dick Offord and everyone who paid the ultimate sacrifice, I say thank you to the commissioners and every single employee and volunteer at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who made a very powerful speech. There have been so many powerful and emotive speeches, and so many Members have eloquently and articulately set out why the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is so important. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is a great honour to speak in this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a reservist.
I am very proud to represent Colchester, which is the home of 16 Air Assault Brigade. It was a long-time garrison town, and now a garrison city. I think the first garrison in Colchester was formed shortly after the Roman invasion in AD 43 and it has been a garrison ever since, but it has been a very important garrison since the Napoleonic wars. As an important garrison town, we have a large military cemetery in Colchester. It contains 114 Commonwealth war graves from the second world war and 266 war graves from the first world war. On Remembrance Sunday, we have a very well attended service at the war memorial, which thousands of Colcestrians attend. In fact, every year the crowd gets larger, but few are aware of the two services held beforehand at both the first world war and second world war memorials in Colchester cemetery, very close to the military cemetery. It is Colchester cemetery that I will speak about this afternoon in this War Graves Week debate.
Those of us on the glide path out of politics tend to look back at our time in this place as a parliamentarian and the changes and the difference we have tried to make. With that in mind I would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who I have been honoured to support. On my election to this House in 2015 I was approached by Mike Jackson specifically about Colchester cemetery. Mike and Sue Jackson are two of the most inspirational people I have ever met. They have raised over £275,000 for Help for Heroes in memory of their late son-in-law Kevin, or Kev, Fortuna. They initially set out to raise £10,000 and they just did not stop.
Colour Serjeant Kev Fortuna of A Company, 1st Battalion the Rifles was tragically killed in May 2011 on active duty in Afghanistan. Mike had been raising the issue of war graves with my predecessor, Sir Bob Russell, and on my election Mike asked me to come with him to visit Colchester cemetery and of course I accepted. He showed me the part of the cemetery with the first and second world war graves, which were beautifully maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. He then showed me the war graves of those who had tragically lost their lives after the end of the second world war, which of course included the grave of Colour Serjeant Fortuna. Shamefully, despite the best efforts of several family members who live locally, the war graves were not maintained to anywhere near the standard of those of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
After research Mike and I identified this was not a Colchester-unique issue; it was a national issue. Mike and I agreed to work together to address this and campaign for change. I wrote to, and secured a meeting with, Earl Howe of the other place, then a Defence Minister. He explained that the remit of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was the first and second world war graves and any war grave thereafter was maintained by the Ministry of Defence. He explained that the MOD budget for war grave maintenance was around a third of that of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and, as sympathetic as he was, he suggested I speak with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So we secured a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was George Osborne at the time, and I recall it vividly. Any parliamentary colleague who has ever gone to ask the Chancellor, or any Treasury Minister, for money knows that is no easy task; especially for an MP in their first year, the default response is usually “No”—or at least it starts with “No”.
However, to his great credit, this meeting with George Osborne was very different. We set out the facts, we explained the background, we spoke about Mike Jackson’s campaign and how wrong it was that Kev Fortuna’s family were maintaining his grave, not to mention the graves of those who had fallen without loved ones nearby to tend to their graves. To George Osborne’s credit, he put out his hand to stop me mid-sentence and said. “That isn’t right. Leave it with me, but I assure you I’m going to fix it.” And just a handful of weeks later at the spending review and autumn statement, George Osborne announced the Government would fund the brilliant Commonwealth War Graves Commission so it could tend over 6,000 graves of those who have died fighting for our country since the second world war. That in effect meant £2 million as an initial up-front sum and then funding as a commitment in perpetuity for all war graves to be maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
I pay tribute to George Osborne for seeing this injustice and putting it right, and I want to thank and pay tribute to Mike Jackson for his determination to right this injustice. His campaign has benefited not just Colchester but more than 1,200 locations where there are war graves. Finally, but by no means least, I want to pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the incredible work it does locally, nationally and internationally. Of course I welcome the uplift in funding announced by the Secretary of State. Commemoration matters; recognising sacrifice matters. We must and we will remember them.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I completely agree with your words earlier that this has been an astonishingly eloquent debate, not least the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has just contributed. It is therefore a privilege and an honour to participate in it.
I am very proud to have Brookwood military cemetery in my constituency of Woking. It is owned by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and it is the largest Commonwealth war cemetery in the United Kingdom, covering approximately 37 acres.
In 1917, an area of land in Brookwood cemetery—or the London Necropolis, as it was known then—was set aside for the burial of men and women of the forces of the Commonwealth and Americans who had died, many from battle wounds, in the London district. This site was further extended to accommodate the Commonwealth casualties of the second world war. There is a large Royal Air Force section in the south-east corner of the cemetery, which also contains the graves of Czechoslovakian and American airmen who served with the Royal Air Force. The Air Force shelter nearby houses the register of those buried in the section. A plot in the west corner of the cemetery contains approximately 2,400 Canadian graves of the second world war, including those of 43 men who died of wounds following the Dieppe raid in August 1942. The Canadian records building, which was a gift of the Canadian Government in 1946, houses a reception room for visitors.
In addition to the Commonwealth plots, the cemetery also contains French, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Belgian and Italian sections, and a number of war graves of other nationalities, all cared for by the commission. The elegant and imposing American military cemetery is the responsibility of the American Battle Monuments Commission. It is maintained every bit as carefully and meticulously as the rest of Brookwood military cemetery.
The cemetery now contains 1,601 Commonwealth burials of the first world war and 3,476 of the second world war. Of the second world war burials, five are unidentified, three being members of the RAF and two being members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The war graves of other nationalities in the commission’s care number 786, including 28 unidentified French.
As an agency service on behalf of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, the commission also maintains a plot for the graves of the Chelsea pensioners, situated adjacent to the military cemetery. It also maintains a small plot containing the graves of 12 members of the nursing services in the adjoining Brookwood cemetery, which is also in the commission’s care.
The Brookwood 1939 to 1945 memorial stands at the southern end of the Canadian section of the cemetery. It commemorates 3,500 men and women of the land forces of the Commonwealth who died during the second world war and have no known grave, the circumstances of their death being such that they could not appropriately be commemorated in any of the campaign memorials in the various theatres of war. They died in the campaign in Norway in 1940 or in the various raids on enemy occupied territory in Europe, such as Dieppe and Saint-Nazaire. Others were special agents who died as prisoners or while working with allied underground movements. Some died at sea, in hospital ships and troop transports, in waters not associated with the major campaigns. A few were killed in flying accidents or in aerial combat.
Some of the stories about the lives, service and deaths of these men and women, particularly those of the special agents, are truly remarkable, fascinating and incredibly moving. A fine new Brookwood 1914 to 1918 memorial was built during my time as Woking’s MP in 2015. It commemorates casualties who died in the United Kingdom during the first world war, but for whom no graves could be found.
Most of the historical information that I have shared with the House comes directly from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does an amazing job. What that cannot convey is the beauty—the terrible beauty, almost—of Brookwood military cemetery. Whether it is in the snow in wintertime, or rain, or the glorious sunshine that has come out for many of the events that take place during the summer months, it is an incredibly beautiful and moving place. Of all the events, services, commemorations and concerts that I attend, I enjoy most of all the open days where the commission invites the public to come and see the cemetery, the commitment and professionalism of the stone masons and gardeners, and explain the work that it does.
The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others mentioned how the commission helps to track down military graves outside our major cemeteries. If it cannot look after those graves, volunteers come forward. I pay tribute to all 2,000 of those volunteers who help out in the UK maintaining graves and telling the commission when a grave is not being kept properly or the stone has broken.
It is moving for me to have Brookwood military cemetery in my constituency. We can look at those graves, which are mainly of young men and women. I studied the first world war, and for many people in our country, that war—those four years of terrible slaughter—came out of the clear blue sky. For the second world war, the dark clouds were more obvious and lasted longer. Men and women of our country and allied nations around the world came forward in that hour of need, and we have been paying tribute to their ultimate sacrifice.
I have enjoyed attending many of the events of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who has chaired the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces for so many years. It is interesting to hear the stories of our top armed forces generals, admirals, chiefs and so forth from the inside. They are in no doubt that, if the call came, not just our generation—by and large, those of us in the House are too old to serve—but the current generations would step up in that hour of need.
We have dark clouds overhead in the world. The Prime Minister spoke eloquently about that in his major speech the other day. I, together with most colleagues in the House—certainly those on the Government Benches—welcome his commitment to that 2.5% target for our armed forces going forward. I know that we have patriotic parties across the House, but we need to be ready. The old axiom that to preserve the peace, we need to prepare for the eventuality of war is the message that is coming to us from our military cemeteries. I know that this generation would make that sacrifice, but the Government and the House need to be on their mettle to meet the threats of the world today.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I begin by declaring an interest as a former commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and a current trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) just described what we all see when we visit Commonwealth war grave cemeteries, with the beauty and the neatness of their lines. I always find it moving to read the inscriptions and see the young ages of some of the individuals who took huge responsibilities to protect the freedoms that we take for granted today. It does an extraordinary job of maintaining those graves, not just in this country but around the world. I pay tribute to all the staff, including the current director general Claire Horton.
I also pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, who has been the president of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission since 1970. When I was a commissioner he took a very active interest. Commissioners today will know his interest, and he still attends ceremonies on behalf of the commission, even at his advanced years. I had the honour in 2010of being appointed by the Queen as one of the two parliamentary commissioners for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with my great friend Keith Simpson, who is no longer in the House. Like the commissioners today, we both took the role very seriously. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, and a privilege to serve in that organisation.
I also had the honour of being a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, responsible for the new war graves cemetery created at Fromelles in 2010. That shows that we are still finding casualties throughout the world, who are still given the respectful burial that each deserves. I pay tribute to the staff who do the research, and for all their care and dedication. Fromelles was on a different scale—more than 400 bodies were uncovered in a piece of detective work by an Australian individual. It was a great honour to attend the interment of the first casualty there, along with my Australian counterpart.
It has been said that we think the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a great British institution, but like a lot of things in the UK, it came into being by accident. The tenacity of Fabian Ware’s great registration scheme in the first world war led to the formation of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Was it universally popular at the time? No, it was not. I suggest that anyone with an interest in how it came to be reads the debate of 4 May 1920, when the money was being apportioned to set it up following the great war. Was it a foregone conclusion? No, it was not. People argued against it, such as the Member for Holborn, Sir James Remnant, who argued that the dead were not the property of the state. It was quite a new thing then for the state to take the decision, because in other campaigns, bodies were repatriated if people could afford it. One individual in that debate opposed what he called the nationalisation of death.
The commission was set up uniquely by dedicated individuals. At an Italian war cemetery, the generals’ graves are huge mausoleums, and the privates are stuck behind. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was clear that in death, everyone is equal. That was an important message and is why the standard commemoration was put in place. No exceptions were made. One of the most poignant things for me is not the graves themselves but the names of individuals—generals can be next to privates. There is no rank in death. An example that sums that up well is down at the Hollybrook memorial in Southampton, which commemorates those lost at sea. There is Lord Kitchener, and then a long list of names of those from the South African labour corps who were lost in an accident off the Isle of Wight. That shows what the commission did and continues to do to ensure that individuals are remembered, regardless of their status.
When I was a commissioner, I had the great honour of visiting the commission’s staff around the world, including, as I think the Secretary of State mentioned, in Gaza. It is not the easiest part of the world, but the dedication of the staff is just the same. I will certainly be thinking of them today, and the job that they do. The cemeteries are beautiful. The most poignant one that I visited is in Papua New Guinea. It is in the middle of a jungle, but is beautifully maintained by the staff. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said, the staff look after not just the memorials and the gravestones, but the horticulture. I am a bit of an anorak on the subject, but if anyone wants to look at the horticulture of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, its history is absolutely fascinating. The work of Gertrude Jekyll and others set the standards that are maintained today. As the right hon. Gentleman said, with climate change, adaptations need to be made, and the commission is at the forefront of that work.
I have the honour of being a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The problem with the commission, if there is one, is that its remit is very tightly controlled by its royal charter. When I was on the commission, one of the issues was whether, technically, we were able to do education. It did not fall within the remit, so we came up with the idea of the foundation. I encourage everyone to look at the foundation’s website, and ask those who are not already members of the foundation to join, so as to support its educational work. It is great at taking the work of remembrance, and of the commission, to schools and so on. That work is not just about remembering the commission’s iconic sites in France, but about getting people to recognise what they have on their doorstep. That formed the subject of a project that I worked on when I was a commissioner. There are war graves in our local cemeteries. In my constituency, there are a number of single graves, but also 24 in Stanley cemetery and 12 in Sacriston cemetery. The Commonwealth War Graves Foundation is trying to ensure that people are aware of their local history, because the people in those cemetaries are mainly local people.
When we look into the stories, which some great local groups are doing, we find that the reason why graves are in a particular place can be very interesting. In County Durham, there are the graves of an Australian bomber crew who were killed returning from a training mission. I think someone referred to this site earlier when discussing the commission’s work with its international partners, but in Cannock Chase there are some 400 casualties from Australia and New Zealand, alongside nearly 2,000 German casualties—zeppelin crews and so on—who died mainly during the first world war. That shows that the commission works internationally. Why are there 400 Australian and New Zealand casualties in Cannock Chase, of all places? Well, it is a very sad story. It was a casualty clearing station, and the casualties went there after the first world war, having survived the horrors of the western front, only to die, in most cases, of Spanish flu. Casualties turn up in different places for interesting reasons.
We in the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation are keen to work with local groups. We have volunteers who not only maintain graves but work on history projects. It is important to get schools involved. We also have a lecture programme; people can ask for a lecture from a volunteer, and I am one. I am qualified to give the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation lecture to local groups. I encourage everyone to look at our website and try to get their community involved. They will be amazed to see what is on their doorstep. That is an important way of bringing not just the work of the commission but local history to life.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have sat here quietly so far, and I almost hesitate to intervene because this is a very dignified debate, but the right hon. Member is making an extremely important point. In my home town of Tain, way up in the highlands, we have 30 war graves, and many are the graves of Czech airmen, which reflects exactly the point that the right hon. Member makes. For 35 years, two people, Billy and Mary Grant, have looked after those graves out of the goodness of their hearts. I have mentioned them deliberately; I want them to have their names in Hansard because of all the good that they have done. The right hon. Member’s point is excellently made, and I support it to the hilt.
Mr Jones
I thank those volunteers, but the hon. Gentleman has raised another interesting point. These are not just British casualties; throughout the United Kingdom, there are casualties from all nations that contributed to our efforts in both world wars.
As I have said, I am passionate about this subject. I think the two commissioners in the House will confirm that once you have been a commissioner, you have it in your blood. I know I am a pain when I go to a funeral or a wedding, because I always go around the cemetery to see whether there are any Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites. The commission has taken a great step forward in digitising information and giving visibility to the casualties who are buried not in large cemeteries, but on our doorstep.
Let me end by paying tribute not only to the commission’s current staff members, but to those who have gone before. They are loyal, dedicated individuals. Is this about glorifying war? No, it is not; it is about recognising the sacrifice that people made, and let us hope that we can continue to do that. It is poignant, especially given the war that is taking place in Europe, to recognise the sacrifice that was made on our behalf in the past so that we can enjoy our freedoms today.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate. The House is at its best when people come together to share knowledge, and details that shed light on a subject and add to the richness of our understanding, without recourse to the tribalism that occasionally mars our proceedings.
Let me begin by acknowledging the view, expressed by many today, that it is our duty to remember those who have served and the sacrifices that they made. We have an obligation to look after their legacy, which cannot and should not lessen with the passage of time. The contributions to today’s debate have all been thoughtful, informative and moving. I doubt that I can do justice to them all, but I want to acknowledge the intervention by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I thank her for reminding us of the difficult places and situations in which the commission operates. I also thank the Secretary of State for a very thoughtful speech, and for his positive update on the commission’s staff who have been in Gaza, and their families.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) described a family connection with the Salerno invasion, but he also told us about the important role of the commission in horticulture, record keeping, forensic examination and the respectful reinternment of remains. That added to our stock of knowledge. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) spoke of a family connection, too. He gave a very good account of the community involvement that can be generated, which can make a real difference. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), reminded us of the scale of losses during the first world war, and of the age of so many who died. Often they were not much older than the schoolchildren who visit the sites today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) reminded us of the role of her mother and mother-in-law, and of the role of women in both munitions and the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. My mother and aunt played similar roles. My right hon. Friend also reminded us of the Kranji war memorial in Singapore, and of the prisoners of war who lost their life during the building of the death railway.
I have great affection for the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and I have heard many of his moving accounts of the horrors of war in this place. Today, he gave a typically thoughtful and moving account of the personal situations in which people sometimes find themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) reminded us of the nature of the personal stories behind the names and inscriptions we read. He also pointed out that we owe a special debt of honour to what I might call the world war two generation.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) already does so much in this field, and he reminded us of something that is easy to overlook: the awfulness of war, and the role of memorials in both remembering those lost and offering some comfort and respect to the families who remain behind. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) gave a family account of the role of his great-uncle, who was clearly engaged in an act of considerable heroism. The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) reminded us of his personal achievement—it was no mean feat—in persuading the former Chancellor George Osborne to expand the funding remit of the commission, so that it covered those who had been killed in conflicts after world war two. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) gave a very evocative account of Brookwood cemetery, and I could visualise the layout as he described it. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) reminded me of just how long he has been in this place, and of just how much he has done. I also acknowledge the stress that he put on the role of education. As well as describing some of the things he did during his time as a commissioner, he also made the good point that there is no rank in death.
I pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work it does to keep alive the memory of the fallen and to provide each new generation with the tools and information they need to understand their history and the sacrifice of so many. That is something that has informed my efforts over 18 years of bringing generations together, especially school pupils and veterans, to understand and celebrate veteran events and Armed Forces Days in my constituency. This is a subject that invites agreement. I acknowledge the dedicated work of all members of the commission. I also acknowledge the sterling work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which has already been raised today, to ensure that the contributions of thousands of individuals from across Africa, India, the middle east and elsewhere are not overlooked and that their rightful place in history is recognised.
The commission’s work, supported by its wonderful volunteers, helps to maintain about 23,000 memorial sites across the world, to keep records, to create spaces to remember the fallen and to provide a final resting place for those who have died, sometimes many miles from home. I also commend the work of the commission on developing new tools to help the rest of us to make sense of what is happening. Before I came into the Chamber today, I used that wonderful tool that allows us to find out details from our area by punching in a postcode. I discovered that where I live today is very close to the house that was the home of Private Edward Harry Bate Crofts of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, who died on 17 April 1915 aged 22 and is remembered at the Ploegsteert Memorial in Belgium. He was the only son of Edward and Clara Crofts of 59 Franklin Road, Bournville, Birmingham.
We have learned today that there are things in this House that can bring us all together, that enable us to put aside our differences and help others to understand what sacrifice has meant in the past, and how important it is to the world that we now face in the future. I commend everyone who took part in this debate, and I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for its outstanding work. I hope that we will be here to celebrate its efforts for many years to come.
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
This has been a powerful and measured debate, and I am grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers and all hon. and right hon. and gallant Members for the sincerity and power with which they have expressed themselves this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) reflected on his important work as a commissioner and the importance of the parliamentary connection with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was very interested to hear him refer to the action at Salerno, in which his grandfather won the Military Cross. He spoke about the global scale of the commission’s challenge in maintaining graves in some of the most difficult circumstances, and in the continued recovery of the fallen, which sets the context nicely for the commemoration that will take place in Normandy for D-day 80. I was glad that he referred to the outreach in schools, which will be an important component of that hugely important commemorative event.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) recalled the service of his family members and the important steps taken by the local community in creating initiatives for remembrance. He also spoke about the important role played by merchant seamen, who are sometimes overlooked, and the commemoration thereof.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), the Chair of the Defence Committee, made a very moving speech about the scale of the impact, reflected by the fact that both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party lost sons at Loos in 1915. He also spoke about the scale of sacrifice by the Commonwealth contingent and the scale of effort in commemorating 1.7 million fallen across 23,000 locations in 153 countries.
My right hon. Friend also spoke movingly about a 99-year-old Normandy veteran in his constituency who asked, “Why them and not us?” That perennial question, which haunts all those involved in any form of operational soldiering, is at the heart of remembrance and everything we do therein. It is at the heart of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is also a commissioner whose work we hugely appreciate. She spoke appropriately about the very important role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s staff and leadership. We are grateful to her for putting that on the record, and I second her sentiment in appreciating the tremendous role they play.
The right hon. Lady spoke very interestingly about her father’s role in the senior service and her mother’s role in a munitions factory, which will reflect the family experience of many right hon. and hon. Members and many constituents. She also mentioned the huge scale of service from the Yorkshire regiments and the Singapore memorials at Kranji. I am grateful that she concluded by saying that the “Torch of Liberation” was passed this morning—my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was there—and that it will now make its way to Normandy next month. That will be an important and very moving act of remembrance.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I note the welcome presence of the Secretary of State at such a debate.
As the only MP whose father was killed in the war, I owe great thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers for all the work they do in looking after my father’s grave at St Manvieu in Normandy, where he was killed in action against a Panzer division on 13 July 1944 and won the Military Cross.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all the work he is doing in this respect.
Leo Docherty
It is my great honour to acknowledge my hon. Friend’s intervention and to put on record our gratitude for his father’s heroism in action, for which he was posthumously awarded the Military Cross. The Secretary of State informs me that arrangements have been made so that my hon. Friend will be able to attend the commemoration event in Normandy next month, which will be a very fitting tribute to the memory of his late, gallant father.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) told a very moving story of sacrifice involving the 2nd Cheshire Regiment’s role in the invasion of Sicily, involving young officers Cox and Martin. He referred very poetically to “many kinds of sorrow” but, of course, none is so keen as a soldier’s for his mate. The House receives his remarks in the context of his own distinguished and gallant record. We are proud to have heard his reflections today. He spoke about the 2,135 Commonwealth war graves in the Catania cemetery, which indicates the sheer scale of loss and sacrifice.
That sentiment was reflected in the welcome remarks from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke movingly about his grandfather’s service in, somewhat unexpectedly, but no less honourably, the Highlanders. The hon. Gentleman also spoke movingly about the reflections of Harry Patch, the last fighting Tommy, in explaining the human toll and the remarkable human stories behind all the statistics therein. He spoke movingly about the experiences of the football regiment and the story of McFadden and Jonas. He also talked about how we have a dwindling number of world war two veterans and of the world war two generation, and so the challenge remains for us to make commemoration relevant and urgent. Clearly, the outcome of the work of the CWGC does exactly that. The commemorations next month at Normandy will be a welcome focus, and I was grateful for his remarks.
Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) made some cogent remarks. We pay tribute to his continued work to support veterans and the act of remembrance. He spoke about the important role of Royal Wootton Bassett, what a physical commemoration means to families of the fallen and the sheer moving experience of visiting CWGC cemeteries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) spoke interestingly and movingly about a visit he made in 2005 to the El Alamein cemetery. I join him in that sentiment, as I have been there; the 7,240 graves are a remarkable sight against the backdrop of the north African desert. He made the good point that these places are important for not just the dead, but the living; the families and the survivors need the physical aspect of commemoration to help them deal with the grief. He gave us a moving story about what happened in the first world war to his great-uncle. He was commemorated on the Menin Gate and that was most welcome. I join my hon. Friend in sincerely thanking the commissioners and the staff of the CWGC for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) gave an interesting insight into the effective campaign of General Jackson and others to ensure that the 6,000 graves of those fallen after 1945 are appropriately supported and maintained. My hon. Friend made a reference to the fact that he is on his way out of politics, which might give him an opportunity to expand and deepen his fledgling military career. His remarks today were very cogent and we are grateful for them, because Colchester has a very important place in our national defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) described the amazing scale of Brookwood, a place I know well because it is near my constituency, and the sum of the 5,627 graves there. I am grateful to him for highlighting the importance of that historic location. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to his time as a commissioner, for which we are most grateful. I was very pleased that he put on record the gratitude of this House for the amazing work over many, many years of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. The right hon. Gentleman made the good point that casualties are still being recovered to this day and that that presents a considerable challenge. He also made the moving point that the principle of equality in death is very important to the commission—it is one we all support. Whether or not he has a wedding to attend near Aldershot, he is very welcome to come to explore the nearly 1,000 war graves we have in Aldershot one weekend. They are maintained to a very high standard.
We have indeed seen the House at its best today, united, respectful and sincerely grateful to the CWGC and to the millions of our forebears who served and sacrificed in the 20th century so that we could be free in the 21st. The sheer scale of the commission’s undertaking to maintain and restore monuments and memories is immense, and its impact on every generation, including future generations to come, is of course priceless. It provides an appreciation of our history; a deep appreciation of our freedom and our democracy; and an appreciation of service and of all those who gave their lives, and all those who were prepared to do that, so that we, in this Chamber, could be free today. On behalf of the whole House, I am very grateful. We say thank you to all those involved for the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and thank you to all those whom they help us to commemorate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This has been an excellent debate. It is sad and unfortunate that those who comment upon what goes on in this Chamber and the work that Members of Parliament do are, quite frankly, too lazy to report a debate like this, when the House is working together, across parties, in a very good cause. I suppose I am laying down a challenge to those who report the proceedings of this Chamber, to report this debate and give it the attention that it deserves, particularly in comparison to other times when the House is fuller but far less productive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered War Graves Week.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 6 to 11 together.
Ordered,
European Scrutiny
That Dame Andrea Jenkyns be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Brendan Clarke-Smith be added.
Home Affairs
That Lee Anderson be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Brendan Clarke-Smith be added.
Justice
That Paul Maynard be discharged from the Justice Committee and Andy Carter and Dehenna Davison be added.
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
That Mrs Natalie Elphicke be discharged from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and Steve Tuckwell be added.
Northern Ireland Affairs
That Damian Collins be added to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Petitions
That Matt Vickers and Tom Hunt be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Tracey Crouch and Peter Gibson be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition relating to the Royal Bank of Scotland closure in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.
My constituency boasts the largest electorate in Scotland, but following the announcement that the Bathgate branch of RBS will close, we will have no remaining RBS branches in the constituency. Banking has changed considerably in the past 25 years, since I worked in the sector. The pace of change has increased since covid, with many people finding online and digital banking more convenient. However, there remains a significant proportion of our community who, for one reason or another, do not do digital banking, and they will be at a serious disadvantage as a result of the closure. They require face to face contact and good, ready access to cash.
The petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the partially publicly-owned NatWest to keep open their last remaining RBS branch in Linlithgow and East Falkirk to ensure residents have access to in-person banking provisions.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the announcement that the Royal Bank of Scotland, owned by NatWest, plans to close its Bathgate branch will have a detrimental impact on the local community; further that this means that RBS will have closed all of its branches in the constituency; further recognises that the removal of high street branches will have a significant impact on those in the community who do not use digital banking; notes that this decision will leave residents in the town with access to just one full time bank branch; further notes that constituents will have to travel to Livingston to visit their nearest RBS branch.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the partially publicly-owned NatWest to keep open their last remaining RBS branch in Linlithgow and East Falkirk to ensure residents have access to in-person banking provisions.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002978]
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of Colin and Janet Smith and Lin Ashcroft from Newport East, who have spent many years fighting for their loved ones, who were victims of the contaminated blood scandal.
Colin and Janet’s son, Colin, died aged just seven, having received blood products contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C at just 10 months old. Just a few months before Colin’s death, Lin lost her husband, Bill, who also contracted HIV through contaminated blood products. For years both families, like so many others impacted by this disaster, faced discrimination. On Friday, Colin told me that 30 years ago they would have been more likely to get a brick through the window instead of signatures of support, which makes the stack of paper I have here today even more important. Almost 1,000 signatures from people across Newport East have been collected by Laura Smith, the Smiths’ daughter-in-law, who deserves much thanks. They were collected with much love for Colin.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newport East,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for 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.
[P002980]
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that so eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) just a few moments ago. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has led the fight for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal in this House. My constituent Sue Sparkes lost her husband, Les, owing to infected blood in 1990, leaving their two sons without a father. She has been tirelessly fighting for justice ever since.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Cardiff West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for 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.]
[P002984]
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Croydon Central and of all those affected by the contaminated blood scandal, and on the same topic as those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her tireless work in pursuing justice.
I am presenting this petition with one constituent in mind who has suffered for many years with undiagnosed hepatitis C as a result of having a transfusion of infected blood. She came to see me recently to help me understand the scale of the scandal and its human impact. Her stories and those of many more have been bypassed and overlooked for far too long. The petitioners
“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.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Croydon Central,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for 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].
[P002981]
Crime: Birmingham, Edgbaston
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents in this debate on crime in Birmingham, Edgbaston. I am pleased that I have been able to secure it, as it comes on the back of a spate of issues that constituents have raised with me in the past number of years, which appear to be getting worse.
In the west midlands, neighbourhood crime has been steadily rising since 2020. Although the title of this debate covers Birmingham, Edgbaston, I know that the experiences and challenges that we face in my constituency are felt across Birmingham and the whole of England. My constituency covers the wards of Edgbaston, North Edgbaston, Harborne, Quinton and Bartley Green.
Let me start by focusing on an issue that has been an absolute stain on the lives of so many of my constituents in recent years: the rise in car-related crime. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, this is one of the many areas of crime where outcomes have steadily worsened over the past 14 years.
By 2010-11, when Labour last left office, vehicle thefts in England and Wales had dropped to a third of what they were 10 years previously. In the years since, numbers have risen again by a third, to over 130,000. But while thefts have risen, the number of cases solved has not. Home Office data for the outcomes of reported crimes show that only 2% of car thefts recorded led to a suspect being charged or summoned. In total, this figure amounted to 3,378. A total of 76% of car thefts were not solved last year.
However, what I really want to talk about today is not the headline statistics, as bleak as they are, but some of the real stories behind the statistics, because debates about crime are not abstract. The experience of my constituents cannot be described by lines on a chart. The result of crime is often a life shattered, confidence shaken and a trail of devastation in its wake, with the victim forced to pick up the pieces.
A recurrent issue that is causing misery for many residents is car stripping. In 2022 one of my constituents had her Toyota Aygo stripped at a parking bay in her residence. In a matter of 17 days, her replacement car was once again stripped. On that occasion another car on the same compound was stripped at the same time. My constituent’s neighbour was a witness to the latter incident and called the police as she watched someone pick apart the cars in real time, but was apparently told by the police that they were far too busy. As my constituent put it:
“I am on a state pension, and I live alone, this has caused me financial problems. But more than that it has left me emotionally and mentally exhausted. I feel if I was to buy or borrow a car that the same would happen. The police had a great opportunity to catch the criminals and at least send a message to others.”
I received another similar case from a member of a street watch group in Harborne:
“A constituent had their car targeted 4 times in one year and swapped to another car as their Toyota Yaris was uninsurable. Their new car was stripped in less than a week.”
A constituent from the same area contacted me to say that a resident on their road had seen one of these incidents taking place in broad daylight. She immediately rang the police but, despite informing them that she was witnessing the incident happening before her eyes, and despite there being a police station around the corner, she was told simply to log the incident online.
The impact that these crimes have on people’s lives should not be understated. I want to share the story of another of my constituents, who works within the NHS at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham in my constituency. She says:
“Last Thursday afternoon on my return to my vehicle after a long day in clinic, I discovered that my new car of only 4 months had been stolen. Although my insurance is fully comprehensive, I am not entitled to a courtesy car as it has not been involved in a smash or been vandalised, and funds to cover the cost of the vehicle will not be paid out until at least 30 days have passed—in case the car is recovered. As you can imagine, I am devastated, and this will impact my working day as well as my life outside massively.
In our department alone, a small team of 11, we have personally experienced, break-ins, stolen belongings, vandalism, damage, a stolen catalytic converter from my previous car 6 months ago, and now vehicle theft. We have all been witnesses to multiple cases of car cannibalism to the cars of other QEHB staff too. The only members of the team who haven’t been directly affected are those who arrive very early and as a result are able to obtain on-site parking. There has also been multiple cases of car theft and vandalism amongst the wider department staff.”
We can see that these are not just isolated incidents, but a pattern of worsening, more frequent and more brazen crime. For the victims, such as those hospital workers, it is devastating; it turns ordinary people’s lives upside down and takes them away from otherwise contributing to society, whether through working in the NHS, looking after their families or supporting their community. However, particularly when so many crimes go unresponded-to and unsolved, crime also has a poisonous impact on our society as a whole, because it shakes our confidence in the very people and institutions we are meant to trust to keep us safe. Take Katy, who also found her car stripped. She said:
“Reporting to the police, for reasons that might be resource related, has been inconsequential and thieves seem to know that, given their increased audacity and frequency of such incidents... This is simply a call for help since my neighbours and myself are growing increasingly hopeless.”
All these things contribute to a growing sense of despair that nothing in this country works any more.
Burglaries are another increasing issue; it is bad enough to have one’s car stripped or stolen, but it is uniquely disturbing to know that strangers have broken into and stolen from one’s own home. There is a unique sense of violation and fear that many victims share with me when they find they have been burgled. One constituent who contacted me told me:
“My wife was home when miscreants broke into the house and since then we don’t feel safe in our own home. During this week as many as 3 more burglaries have taken place. No house which is locked even for a few hours during the day is safe... Police officials come and do the formalities of paper work and rest we don’t know...”.
In Quinton we have faced a spate of burglaries, even as families are at home eating dinner and during the day. Residents say they have noticed how much more brazen criminals have become: they do not care if one person is in, or even if whole families are at home. That has left residents terrified in their own homes. Almost all of them have Ring doorbells, but they do not seem to deter the culprits.
The point I am making is that the fear that crime puts into victims lasts so much longer than the time taken to experience and report the crime. As we can hear in these testimonies, there is a sense that in this country certain forms of crime simply happen without any consequence. That feeds a sense of isolation, hopelessness and powerlessness that is corrosive to the society that we surely want to create. That is why I applied for the debate and am raising these stories in the hope that the Minister can give my constituents some reassurance that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that the perpetrators of these crimes will see justice.
On car cannibalism especially, we know that parts are often stolen to order and passed on for the valuable materials they contain. Ministers have suggested previously that they would consider a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 if necessary. Will the Minister consider it? What additional funding have the Government made available to tackle illegal unlicensed operators in the metals recycling sector and launch a wider campaign to tackle that crime? I appreciate that he may mention the National Police Chiefs’ Council metal crime steering group, but what actions have been implemented as a result of that group’s recommendations, and how are the outcomes measured?
The National Crime Agency has referred to
“an overall increase in organised acquisitive crime”,
including car theft. That was evident in the shocking 30% rise in car theft in the most recent year, according to the Home Office’s own statistics. Why does the Minister think his Government have failed to prevent serious organised crime groups from taking hold across Britain’s towns and high streets?
A concern that my constituents raise frequently is that they do not feel that police are adequately resourced to handle the crimes that they report and have to deal with, and, what is more, that the reassuring community police presence needed to deter criminals in the first place is not there. Given that 4,500 police community support officers have been cut since 2015, and only 12% of officers are assigned to neighbourhood policing teams, my constituents have a point, don’t they?
Over the past 14 years, the Government have overseen a litany of broken promises on policing across England. The decision to cut 20,000 experienced police officers, before trying to replace them with vastly less experienced officers, was just one of a catalogue of errors that have had a lasting impact on people’s trust in the police. I have heard colleagues talk about the glory days when they had five or six police officers and police community support officers in every ward, while I am having to fight to get numbers increased. Meanwhile, the number of arrests has halved, prosecutions have almost halved and the number of crimes solved has halved. More crimes are being reported, but fewer crimes are being solved. Criminals are getting away with it on this Government’s watch.
Those figures are accompanied by cuts to youth services and other institutions that were set up to support young people and reduce the causes of crime in our communities. After years of Tory austerity, youth services in Birmingham have been starved of the resources they desperately need. The total core budget for youth services last year was just £2.1 million, and there are currently just 25 full-time equivalent youth workers providing services to around 120,000 teens across the city—one youth worker for every 4,600 teens.
Young people in my constituency deserve better. They should have the same opportunities to develop and thrive as every other child across the country. That is why the next Labour Government will launch Young Futures, a new national cross-Government programme aimed at giving Britain’s young people the best start to life. A specific strand of activity will be targeted at the young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime, and will deliver support for young people struggling with their mental health.
In my patch, the high number serious violent offences has become a persistent problem. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure in their communities but, heartbreakingly, many of my constituents do not. In 2021, our city was shaken to its core by the murder of 14-year-old Dea-John Reid. His attackers chased after him in a car, yelled racist slurs at him and then hunted him down—a child—like a pack of animals. Dea-John’s death was horrifying. He was a much-loved young boy with so much ahead of him. To lose him in such a sudden and brutal way is heartrending. Dea-John was a victim of knife crime—and he is far from the only one.
Last month, it was reported that the West Midlands police are has the highest knife crime rate in England and Wales. Last year, Birmingham was named the gun capital of the UK, having overtaken London to have the highest gun crime rate in the country. Gun crime has emerged as a problem that increasingly haunts my constituents. Just last September in Quinton, residents were terrorised after a drive-by shooting took place on a residential street in broad daylight. A north Edgbaston constituent wrote to me after robbers jumped into her garden and tried to break into her home. After failing to enter her property, the gang held up her neighbours, who were only students, at gunpoint. What is the Minister doing to tackle the surge in gun crime in Birmingham? How does he expect my constituents to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities when neighbourhood police forces have been decimated and crime continues to rise?
I would also like to raise the catastrophic effects of dangerous driving, speeding, car cruising and off-road bike usage that many of my constituents repeatedly experience. Just yesterday morning, a child in my constituency was taken to hospital after being hit by a car during rush hour on a road in Bartley Green. The road where that poor child was hit is notoriously bad for speeding, and I have raised my concerns multiple times with the council and the police, but have repeatedly been told that it is not a priority for speed-calming measures. That shines a light on how speeding impacts people’s lives in my patch and how scarce resources are for tackling this blight on our communities.
Residents in Quinton write to me regularly about the scale of street racing, speeding and dangerous driving on their roads. Last year, two young girls aged four and two were hit by a car on West Boulevard. The year before that, two young boys were injured after a minibus they were passengers in crashed with two other vehicles. Pedestrians do not feel safe with so many crashes happening on our roads.
Off-road bikes have also been a cause of serious concern for my constituents. Recently, a constituent wrote to me to say that the issue of people riding off-road vehicles in his neighbourhood is escalating, as the offenders with illegal off-road motorcycles are now carrying offensive weapons. He said,
“I am now regularly reporting the incidents…But still at this stage nothing is happening to seize these bikes.”
I have taken this matter to the top of Government, asking the Home Office what assessment it has made
“of the adequacy of the (a) powers and (b) resources available to the police to deal with the illegal use of quad bikes.”
In reply, the Government said:
“The police have adequate powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles being driven illegally”.
Of course, though, what matters are resources and officer numbers, which I raised with the Government last year when I wrote to the Home Secretary asking when our region will see investment in resources and officer numbers. What exactly are the Government doing to tackle dangerous driving on our roads? Does the Minister accept that the police might not effectively have adequate powers to combat speeding and seize vehicles being driven illegally if resources have been, and continue to be, slashed? Average speed cameras, again, are a resource issue.
I will close my remarks with the comments of another of my constituents:
“I have lived here in Quinton most of my life and can honestly say I have never seen crime so bad to what it is now. There is constant racing on the West Boulevard and up/down”
my constituent’s road
“including near the school where a young child was run over. There has been a stabbing on the road. There have been several cannabis farms and the road always seems to smell of cannabis. There was a serious assault in the early hours Saturday morning with the offender residing in the HMO… There is a vulnerable adult residing at the bottom of the road where the local drug dealers use his property as a ‘hang out’”.
There are similar stories across Edgbaston, Bartley Green, Harborne and North Edgbaston. My constituent also said:
“I know in other areas the police assist with CCTV or mobile cameras to assist with catching offenders. Can this not be an option for”
my constituent’s road
“in a plea to catch local offenders and make residents feel safe again.”
That is a direct plea from my constituent.
Despite the repeated calls from families across Birmingham, Edgbaston and throughout the country, criminals are not being caught or paying the price. Some 90% of crimes are going unsolved, and 2 million crimes—including a shocking 74% of burglaries—were dropped with no suspect being identified. That is the shameful Tory legacy on criminal justice; we simply cannot afford to carry on like this. Labour has made a really important pledge to get neighbourhood policing back into communities with 13,000 extra police officers and PCSOs, to guarantee patrols in our town centres, and to tackle knife crime as part of our mission to halve serious violence.
I put on record my thanks to my local police officers for everything they do with the limited resources they have. I am also grateful to our new chief constable, who has agreed to prioritise neighbourhood policing, but the west midlands has had 2,200 police officers cut and we are still 800 short. Fundamentally, people do not feel safe, and do not feel that they get justice as victims of crime on this Government’s watch.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this evening’s debate. Let me start by providing some national context before answering some of her questions. She mentioned a number of crime figures in her speech, and it is important to put on record that two sets of crime statistics are published: there is police recorded crime, which are the figures she is quoting, and then there is the crime survey for England and Wales produced by the Office for National Statistics. The police recorded crime figures depend on the propensity of the public to report and how good a job the police do in recording those crimes. Over the last five or seven years, the police have become a lot better at recording all the crimes reported to them, and that is why those numbers have gone up.
However, the Office for National Statistics tells us that the most reliable set of figures for long-term crime trends are not the police reported crimes figures for the reasons I have set out—they depend on the public’s propensity to report and the police’s ability to record them—but the crime survey. Let me give the hon. Lady some of the crime survey figures since 2010, which she mentioned as a reference period. On a like-for-like basis, all crime has come down by 54% since 2010, according to the independent Office for National Statistics, while violence is down by 46%, theft by 47%, domestic burglary by 55%, and vehicle theft by 39%. There is a lot more to do, particularly on shoplifting, vehicle crime and knife crime, which I will come to in a moment, but the overall crime trends are down.
On resources, which the hon. Lady mentioned a few times, across England and Wales as a whole, we now have record numbers of police officers. On 31 March last year, we reached 149,566 police officers. That is more than we have ever had before, and it surpasses the previous peak, which was in March 2010, by about 3,500 officers. So we have record police numbers, and those have broadly speaking been maintained since that record was reached in March last year.
On West Midlands police specifically, its budget this year was £790 million, which is an increase of £51 million year on year, or about 6.4%—considerably higher than the current rate of inflation. I think many of the questions the hon. Lady is asking are questions she should be addressing to Simon Foster, the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, who somehow managed to get re-elected a couple of weeks ago, because he has those financial resources. Whereas other police areas around the country have hit record numbers, as has the total, that has not happened in the West Midlands. That is a question I would strongly encourage her to ask Mr Foster, now that he has somehow got himself re-elected.
The hon. Lady asked several questions about specific crime types. She went through quite a long list, so I will quickly go through some of the more important of them. She mentioned, for example, knife crime, which is a concern. The number of people getting admitted to hospital with an injury by a knife has come down by 26% in the last five years, but there is further to go. London is conspicuously much worse than the rest of the country. In the rest of the country, a lot more progress is being made, but there is an exception in London.
We are doing quite a lot to combat this. First, we are encouraging a greater use of stop and search—done respectfully, of course. That takes knives off the streets, and we would welcome cross-party support for the police to lawfully use stop and search more to get dangerous knives off the street. Secondly, we are investing in various forms of technology. In fact, just this lunch time I was with a company—an American company—that is developing a new technology that can scan somebody walking down a street to see whether they are carrying a knife, and it can distinguish a knife from a mobile phone or something else. It is not quite ready to deploy yet, but I think it will be ready to deploy experimentally this year. I think that could revolutionise our ability to look at a crowd and detect who in that crowd is carrying a knife, and then make sure they are stopped, the knife is taken off them and they are arrested.
We are also doing quite a lot of work on prevention, and the hon. Lady mentioned youth services. Notoriously, Birmingham City Council went bankrupt, but the Home Office is directly funding violence reduction units, to the tune of more than £50 million a year across the country, which are designed to work with young people—whether it is with mentoring, work experience, cognitive behavioural therapy or youth activities, sometimes in partnership with football clubs—to help get them on to a better path.
The Youth Endowment Fund does lots of work here—it has £200 million—and I commend the work of Jon Yates, the chief executive. From next year, there is going to be a £75 million increase in violence reduction unit funding over three years, which is about a 50% increase because, as the hon. Lady says, supporting those young people is so important. This autumn, we will also be piloting, with the Youth Endowment Fund, a new initiative to try to identify the 50 or so of young people or early teenagers who are most at risk of getting into serious violence and serious crime. That includes looking at a range of indicators, such as mental health, education, housing or having an older sibling who is involved in a gang—indicators that go beyond criminal justice, so that interventions can be made to stop a vulnerable or at-risk 12 or 13-year-old becoming a violent 17 or 18-year-old. That initiative has the potential to make a real difference.
The hon. Lady talked about car crime, and crime more widely, which is a concern. I recently met the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover to discuss exactly this point. We are stepping up work on car crime, and are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead, Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims of the Merseyside force. Stolen cars are often sold and rapidly exported in containers to countries including the United Arab Emirates and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We will do more work to stop that export at the border. We will also increase the amount of intelligence work done, so that we can spot patterns and identify the organised criminal gangs who are often stealing these cars.
Preet Kaur Gill
The testimonies that I shared were so powerful because they are people’s experience of being victims of crime. Those people say that given that the West Midlands police are still 800 police officers short, the resource is just not there, so they are given a crime reference number, and that is it. That does not make people feel safe. The Minister is talking about youth crime and various initiatives, but youth services have been decimated. There is nowhere for young people to go, and there are no opportunities for good jobs or training, so they get exploited. Those are the kinds of things that young people need. They need hope and aspiration.
Chris Philp
Youth unemployment is of course a great deal lower today than it was under the last Labour Government. On resources and police numbers in the west midlands, as I mentioned, the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands has £51 million more this year than last year, so the hon. Lady ought to ask him, ideally publicly, what he is spending that money on, and why he is not addressing the issues that she raises.
I agree that car crime and other crimes affect the victim terribly. That is why police across the whole country, including of course in the west midlands, have committed to always following reasonable lines of inquiry where they exist, including in relation to car crime. A big technological change that we are already exploiting is retrospective facial recognition. If the victim has an image of an offender—a Ring doorbell image, a mobile phone photograph of someone taking a car, closed circuit television footage from a shop where shoplifting has occurred—even if the image is blurred or partially obscured, it can be run through the police national database for a match. The facial recognition algorithm is now extremely accurate. That is a way in which we are already catching a lot more criminals, including some involved in car crime.
I encourage victims who have a picture of a suspect to please give it to the police, because they have committed to always—not sometimes—running it through the facial recognition database; and they have committed to always—again, not sometimes—following up reasonable lines of inquiry where they exist. That is for all crimes, even crimes that some people would historically have considered minor. That commitment was made last September, and it is vital that the police deliver on it and support victims, for the reasons the hon. Lady set out.
Preet Kaur Gill
Will the Minister give an example of where that technology has been used, because I have never known that to happen? When residents send images that seem to be blurred, the police are very clear that they cannot do anything with them. Can the Minister tell me how many forces are using the technology, and when there has been a conviction?
Chris Philp
I wonder how much longer I have, but the technology is being used across the whole country. This year, over 100,000—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. To answer the Minister’s question, he has until 7.30 pm, which is some 57 minutes away. How long his speech takes is of course a matter for his discretion; I am putting no pressure on him.
Chris Philp
I am tempted to use all 57 minutes, and I am sure the hon. Lady has interventions that would take up a fair chunk of that, but I will be a lot briefer, which I am sure will be popular with colleagues.
Retrospective facial recognition is being used thousands of times every month, and there are all kinds of examples of it being used successfully. For example, a murder was committed in a Coventry nightclub a couple of years ago, and the only piece of evidence was a photograph of the suspect taken in the nightclub. Running that through the police national database got a match, and the police went to the suspect’s address and found the suspect there, with clothes covered in the victim’s blood, and he has now been convicted. There are hundreds of examples just from the past few months of retrospective facial recognition being used. A photo that is blurred or dark can often be matched. Obviously there needs to be some sort of image that the police can look at, but it is remarkable to see the images that can now be matched, using that algorithm. I strongly encourage everybody to send images to the police. If the police do not run them through the facial recognition database, people should ask why and push the police to do so, because they have committed to doing that.
We now deploy live facial recognition in a way that allows suspects who are wandering around a high street or a train station to be identified and arrested. I have also mentioned technology such as knife scanning. Facial recognition has the potential, in the coming years and months—this is not a long way off; it is being used now—to transform how we catch criminals, so that we do a better job for victims.
The hon. Lady also asked about scrap metal. Interestingly enough, I had a meeting today with the all-party parliamentary group on metal, stone and heritage crime, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Lord Birt, who is a member of the APPG from the Lords, also attended. We discussed what more we can do. Scrap metal theft is estimated at about £500 million a year. When the Scrap Metal Dealers Act was passed in 2013—it was a private Member’s Bill from my predecessor Sir Richard Ottaway—the figure was about £800 million a year, so the value has come down by more than a third since 2013, but we would like to go further.
The hon. Lady mentioned the NPCC group on metal theft; it is my intention to invite myself to that group and attend its next meeting, which I think is on 11 June, to press for more action in this area. The theft of catalytic converters and lead are the areas of most pressing concern.
The hon. Lady briefly mentioned shoplifting, which is a matter of extreme concern. The police have a national retail crime action plan, which includes a plan to target prolific shoplifters, and to follow reasonable lines of inquiry, including by always running the pictures from CCTV through the facial recognition database. The Government published our additional action plan just a couple of weeks ago, which includes a plan to meet the calls from Members of this House, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. That has been widely welcomed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I am not taking up all 57 minutes. I have set out the actions that are being taken and, more importantly, the results that are being delivered. There are some disappointing trends in the west midlands, but I know the hon. Lady will take those up with the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, and will ask him what he is doing with the £51 million extra he has got this year. I will work constructively with her and other colleagues to make sure that our communities are kept safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
This statutory instrument forms part of the Government’s programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services and replace areas of retained EU law in financial services with an approach to regulation that is tailored properly to the UK. That includes the EU law relating to securitisation.
In January 2024, Parliament agreed to establish a new legislative framework to replace the assimilated securitisation regulation 2017. This included revoking regulations from UK legislation to enable the UK financial services regulators, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, to make rules for securitisation. This framework will come into effect from 1 November 2024.
Occupational pension schemes—an issue of huge importance to you, Madam Chair, and to the whole House—are also subject to securitisation due diligence rules. Occupational pension schemes are supervised, not by the PRA or the FCA, but by the Pensions Regulator. However, the Pensions Regulator does not have equivalent statutory rule-making powers to the PRA and the FCA, and so cannot make the necessary rules for occupational pension schemes themselves. These rules need to be created in legislation instead. Therefore, this instrument, the Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024, restates due diligence requirements for occupational pension schemes that invest in securitisations.
The Treasury’s approach is necessary to avoid a regulatory gap after the coming into force of the revocation of securitisation regulation 2017, and to ensure consistency in due diligence requirements for institutional investors, whether those investors are subject to forthcoming FCA and PRA rules or supervised by the Pensions Regulator. This instrument maintains the Government’s existing approach, where most rules governing occupational pension schemes’ investors are set through legislation.
Legislating for these changes now has allowed the Government to reflect the outcome of the regulators’ consultations and final policy views on these due diligence requirements for other financial services firms. The approach also ensures that occupational pension schemes face the same rules as other firms. These restated due diligence requirements include targeted adjustments to ensure that they are more principles-based and proportionate, and they clarify responsibility for due diligence requirements where investment decisions are delegated. This should overall reduce regulatory burdens on occupational pension schemes and support their participation in the UK securitisation market.
This SI designates the FCA as responsible for supervising any occupational pension schemes that are acting as originators, sponsors or special purpose entities for securitisations, which aligns the supervision of occupational pension schemes with other firms that are undertaking these activities. But in practice the Treasury envisages that the impact will be minimal, as neither my Department nor the regulators are aware of any occupational pension schemes currently engaged in these activities. However, as is, I think, good practice in all legislation, the Government wish to anticipate the possibility for such involvement and deal with it now.
This SI also makes two changes to make the investor protection framework in the UK more effective and competitive, restating the prohibition on transacting securitisations through special purpose entities in high-risk jurisdictions. These high-risk jurisdictions are the three jurisdictions subject to Financial Action Task Force measures, namely the countries Iran, Myanmar and North Korea. The SI modifies the prohibition in two ways. It expands this restriction to investors in such securitisations, as well as the originators and sponsors of the securitisations. However, it also streamlines the requirement, reducing regulatory burdens by removing a redundant prohibition on engaging in securitisations in jurisdictions that do not comply with certain OECD model tax agreements. This also removes ambiguity from the requirement.
Together, the changes made by this SI will ensure consistency and integrity of UK securitisation regulation for institutional investors in securitisation, whether subject to regulator rules or restated provisions. The changes also ensure that the UK’s requirements are more proportionate, streamlined and principles-based, whether for due diligence requirements on occupational pension schemes as institutional investors or for compliance with prohibitions on securitisations in the high-risk jurisdictions that I named.
I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of the statutory instrument before us today, which is complementary to the Securitisation Regulations 2024, which we debated in January. We supported those regulations in January and we will be supporting the ones before us today. We feel that these form part of an important package of reform aimed at developing a securitisation market in our country that contributes to growth in the real economy.
I have a couple of questions, which are based on the specific measures introduced by this SI. I welcome the fact that the PRA listened to our objections during its consultations and restored the existing language to do with confidentiality. However, I am sure the Minister will be aware that the sector still has concerns that the existing language creates some uncertainty. Does the Minister share those concerns, and has he raised the matter with the PRA?
Many of the industry’s concerns regarding risk retention and credit granting were not addressed in the current version of the rules, so will the Treasury be working with regulators to ensure that these concerns are taken into account with future policy developments?
Finally, in terms of next steps, which the Minister did outline, the FCA and the PRA expect to consult on further changes to their securitisation rules in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025. How confident is the Minister that these timelines will be met?
Bim Afolami
I thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. In response to her first question in relation to the concerns from some that there is some uncertainty in the SI, I do not recognise that, but I am happy to work with anybody in industry who feels that that is the case. I felt that the PRA had dealt adequately with the concerns that had been raised.
On the second point in relation to risk retention and credit granting, that is not something that has been brought up with me, but I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady and any others in industry who feel that that still needs to be addressed.
On the third and critical point around timing of rules being put in place by the PRA and the FCA, I am very confident that both Q4 and Q1 will be adhered to because, unlike this place, they will continue working in the event of a dissolution of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Governance Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Football Governance Bill 2023-24 View all Football Governance Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2024 - (14 May 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also ask everybody present to switch any electronic devices they have to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, although, obviously, water is provided on the tables. Members who may wish to take off their jackets are free to do so, because it is getting a bit warmer nowadays. Date Time Witness Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 10.10 am Mr Kieran Maguire, Senior Teacher in Accountancy, University of Liverpool; Dr Christina Philippou, Principal Lecturer in Accounting, Economics and Finance, University of Portsmouth Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 11.00 am The English Football League; The Premier League; The National League Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 11.25 am The Football Supporters’ Association Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 2.30 pm Solihull Moors F.C.; Dagenham & Redbridge F.C Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 3.00 pm Cambridge United F.C.; Bolton Wanderers F.C Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 3.30 pm Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.; Crystal Palace F.C. Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 3.50 pm The Football Association Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 4.10 pm Women in Football Tuesday 14 May Until no later than 4.40 pm The Football Foundation; Fair Game Thursday 16 May Until no later than 11.50 am The Professional Footballers’ Association Thursday 16 May Until no later than 12.10 pm Kick It Out Thursday 16 May Until no later than 12.40 pm Action for Albion; Supporters Trust at Reading: STAR; Arsenal Supporters’ Trust
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally and without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion in his name, which was agreed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for this Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 14 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 May;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 May;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 June;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 3; Clauses 10 to 18; Schedule 4; Clauses 19 to 20; Schedule 5; Clauses 21 to 24; Schedule 6; Clauses 25 to 66; Schedule 7; Clause 67; Schedule 8; Clauses 68 to 74; Schedule 9; Clauses 75 to 80; Schedule 10; Clauses 81 to 92; Schedule 11; Clauses 93 to 95; Schedule 12; Clauses 96 to 98; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; and
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 6 June. —(Stuart Andrew.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.— (Stuart Andrew.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Stuart Andrew.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, and will also be circulated to Members by email. We will now go into a private session to discuss the lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with this Bill?
Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I want to declare that I was chair of the fan-led review that led to this Bill.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I sit on the management committee of the Spirit of Shankly football union for Liverpool football club.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I am a trustee of The Sports Trust in Folkestone, which has previously received funding from the Football Foundation.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary football club group, and we too receive sponsorship.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on football. I do not think it necessary to declare, but at least it is there on the record in case anyone wants to know that.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Kieran Maguire, senior teacher in accountancy at the University of Liverpool, and Dr Christina Philippou, a principal lecturer in accounting, economics and finance at the University of Portsmouth. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I should like to remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We will stick quite strictly to the timings in the programme motion, which the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we therefore have until approximately 10.10 am. I will give warning before this session finishes. Would the witnesses like to introduce themselves and say a few words before fielding questions from the Committee?
Kieran Maguire: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I am Kieran Maguire from the University of Liverpool. I have specialised in football finance there for the last 11 years. Along with Christina, we have been asked to submit two research papers to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; first, in respect of the state of finances of the industry during covid, and subsequently coming out of covid. I think we last produced a paper around 12 months ago.
Dr Philippou: I am Christina Philippou from the University of Portsmouth. I do a lot of work around sport finance and sport governance. Prior to academia, I was a forensic accountant.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Q
Kieran Maguire: If we take a look at the history of both the Premier League and the English Football League, they have been successful in generating revenue. Since the Premier League was formed in 1992-93, its revenues have increased by 2,857%, whereas the Championship is at just over 1,000%. Given that prices have doubled, from a consumer price index perspective, that is absolutely fantastic. However, that has gone alongside an inability to control costs. The most significant costs in the industry are wages—while Premier League revenues are up by 2,800%, wages have increased by over 4,000%. Similarly, as far as the EFL Championship goes, if we take just one division, wages are up 1,400% compared with revenue of 1,000%. Profit is revenue less costs, and there has been a struggle to control costs.
As a consequence, if we look at the figures for 2022-23, which is a post-covid year—no ramifications—the 20 clubs in the Premier League lost a collective £836 million. In the Championship, on average the clubs were losing £20 million: League One, £4.1 million, League Two, £1.4 million; and in the National League, £970,000. All those clubs have been part of a spectacularly successful industry, of which we should be proud. It has globalised the game of football as coming from the UK. There has been a collective inability to control costs.
Dr Philippou: That summarises it pretty well. There is a general issue in relation to that, apart from that of cost control. We have also seen lots of administration, which has impacted on local communities over the years. Roughly two in five of the clubs in the top four leagues have gone into administration in the last 30 years, which is not a great stat. If we look at the post-covid years, as Kieran said—even putting into perspective what is happening at the moment—average losses in the Premier League were about £42 million, compared with its own cost controls, which are roughly £35-million losses per year. If we look at the Championship, it is roughly £20-million losses, where its own cost control saved around £15 million per year. Even by their own standards, they are not doing particularly well.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Kieran Maguire: As far as the potential changes are concerned, the ability to have a regulator which can do real-time monitoring in respect of finances, so that it can identify potential problems at an earlier stage, would be beneficial. That would diminish the chances of a club getting into a more long-term financial crisis, where the only solution would be administration. The ability to have a regulator with a set of financial rules and observations, where you can nudge people in the right direction—I do not think that the regulator should be telling clubs how they should behave, but should be able to help the club itself to identify problems—would be beneficial.
Dr Philippou: Absolutely. Another strength in the Bill is that you can request information. One of the issues we have seen, which some of the leagues also struggle with, is the ability of the clubs to provide information in ways that are accessible and usable. That is something in the Bill which should help.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Kieran Maguire: Owner funding is critical. We have ended up with the scenario where many clubs are what one could describe as trophy assets, where the ambition of the owner is not one of profitability but of soft power or kudos—the ability to say, “I own a football club”. Some of those owners are fantastic, as they want to repay the local community, which they have been brought through, and they have turned out to be successful. We tend to see commercial banks being reluctant to lend to the football industry because of the level of losses that we have previously described. From a lending position, a bank would always do a risk assessment in respect of any moneys that would be forwarded. My background, before going into academia, was as an insolvency specialist, and I did one or two investigations into football clubs where the bank’s response was: “We don’t want to be seen as the bad people in making this decision.”
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Kieran Maguire: Since the inception of the Premier League, the original wage-to-revenue percentage was around 45%, but that has now increased to the mid-60s. If we take the EFL Championship, for 10 years out of the 11, wages have exceeded revenue. Before they invest in the transfer market, before they switch on the floodlights, and before they put petrol in the mower, clubs are already losing money. Unless there is owner funding, there is no logic in keeping those businesses running, but football is a unique industry. If I was running a nightclub, a garage or a launderette, I would simply have closed the business down.
Dr Christina Philippou: More than half of the clubs in the top five leagues are technically insolvent, so if they were any other business, they would not be in existence. The fact that they are still standing is partly linked to how monopolistic the structure is. Obviously, fans find it quite hard to move from one club to another, and clubs tend to be a bit more resilient in keeping the fans than other businesses. However, that also has the knock-on effect of it being very community-based, and there are further knock-on impacts when those clubs go into administration.
The Chair
Stephanie, if you have any other questions, I will bring you in a bit later. There are a lot of Members who have indicated that they want to ask questions.
Damian Collins
Q
Kieran Maguire: When we had the introduction of solidarity payments from the Premier League to the EFL, which started to become index-linked to the growth in the Premier League broadcasting, exactly what you suggested tended to be the case. Any redistribution plan has to go hand in hand with a more nuanced and affirmative cost-control measure. Otherwise, you are simply transferring money from the wages of a footballer in the Premier League to the wages of a player in the Championship. I do not see how that benefits the game on a holistic basis.
Dr Christina Philippou: As we have seen, the cost-control issues are still there. The point is to try to fix that concern, rather than just to give more money to be spent poorly, which is not going to fix the problem. Fixing corporate governance and the cost controls will have a much better effect.
Damian Collins
Q
Kieran Maguire: Historically, the authorities, given the mandate that they currently have from the clubs themselves, have tended to be looking in the rear-view mirror. Therefore, they are playing catch-up. One of the advantages of having an independent regulator would be the ability to do real-time investigations and also potentially either to offer advice or, in extreme circumstances, to look at some form of regime change that allows the appointment of trustees and advisers to assist clubs in precarious financial positions.
Dr Christina Philippou: That is the whole point of something like an advocacy-first approach: you can work with the clubs before you get to the problem. Before you get to administration or those serious financial problems that we are seeing, if there is real-time monitoring, if you see the problems ahead of time, and if we have some proper budgeting and corporate governance in football clubs, that should mitigate the problem to a large degree.
Damian Collins
Q
Kieran Maguire: In an ideal world, yes. I do not think that the regulator can convert us into a zero-crisis environment. It is a case of turning down the dial. In the case of Everton, there was no doubt that money was spent in a similar way to what we saw with Roman Abramovich and Chelsea, and with Sheikh Mansour and Manchester City. There was an investment in talent and options in terms of infrastructure as well. The problem is that if you have any business that is living beyond its means, and is reliant on third-party or ownership funding, I think you have to very carefully monitor the ability of that funding to be maintained on a medium to long-term basis. We have seen, sadly in the case of Everton, that that does not appear to have been the case.
Dr Philippou: That is the importance of looking at the sources of funding, which is part of what is in the Bill, in relation to the owners and directors test.
Mr Betts
Q
Kieran Maguire: I think they do both. The intention of parachute payments when they were introduced, which was around 2006, was to address the possibility of clubs going into administration, because of the significant step-downs between the Premier League and the Championship. At the same time, it does mean that you have created a new benchmark in levels of spending that clubs in receipt of parachute payments can achieve, and therefore those clubs in the Championship that want to be competitive are incentivised to overspend, so I think we have a problem. Parachute payments are a clumsy solution to the bigger problem, which is the significant difference between the revenues of not just the Premier League and the Championship, but also between the Championship and League One.
Mr Betts
Q
Kieran Maguire: If we are going to look for a 92-club solution or, if we are including the National League, an 116-club solution, then the regulator should be able to deal with parachute payments, otherwise you are not dealing with the whole issue. If you have a redistribution model that does not involve parachutes, the Premier League’s position would be advantageous, and I do not think that would be in the best interests.
Dr Philippou: You need to have access over the whole of revenue, and that forms part of the revenues of Championship clubs. It would not make sense, in that sense.
Mr Betts
Q
Kieran Maguire: One would imagine that you would look at parachute payments from two angles. First, the quantum—the actual sums involved. Secondly, the length of parachute payments. They have been reduced from four years to three years, in recent years. I think there is a third issue, in respect of those clubs that are in receipt of parachute payments and are then promoted back to the Premier League. The parachutes that are not received are kept by the Premier League and distributed between the 20 clubs. That does seem very harsh, given that clubs are losing more money in the Championship to begin with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Q
Dr Philippou: It is fairly light touch from a compliance background, if you look at the financial implications and what is being asked for. In summary, you are effectively asking for some budgeting, some basic risk assessment, and knowing the roles of your senior management. It is fairly light touch, if you are running the club properly. From my perspective, it does not look particularly over-regulated. Certainly, from a compliance perspective, I would expect that if you are running the club properly, a lot of that information should be there anyway, and should be easily reportable without adding much burden to clubs.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Kieran Maguire: As far as the National League is concerned, I think the average losses were £970,000 a year. There are no cost-control measures as far as the national league is concerned, so that is why we have seen the recent arrival of owners who have transformed individual clubs, because they have been allowed to achieve effectively unlimited levels of loss. That potentially has implications when those clubs are promoted to League Two, although again they have tended to do very well.
The National League has been intriguing, and certainly issues arose with governance during covid, such as the grants that were given to support those clubs, which proved to be quite contentious. Like both the Premier League and the EFL, there appears to be some form of civil war taking place within—or between—clubs. We talk about the Premier League, the National League and the EFL, but I do not think there is a collective viewpoint within those institutions themselves from an individual club basis.
Dr Philippou: From a financial profile point of view, the National League shows very similar financial issues to League One and League Two. It is not as if National League clubs are free from problems, and the reason why they are in here is because they are pro clubs—it is professional football.
Ian Byrne
Q
Kieran Maguire: The Premier League has been successful because it has gone out to an audience and it has sold its services. There is no reason why the Premier League will not be competitive on a European basis in recruiting players, in respect of these rules. On attracting investment into the Premier League, part of the reason for its success is that we have moved effectively from a duopoly, which is where we were in 2005, to a more competitive product. In my view, if I was an investor, I would like to be able to invest in an industry where the opportunity to break even becomes greater, and I think that is more likely with the regulator than not.
Dr Philippou: We are not seeing much investment from certain areas that you would expect in most businesses. Part of that is the loss-making and the difficulty in conducting due diligence around football clubs. What we see in the Bill should fix that, and therefore we would expect to see more of a certain type of investment. Yes, perhaps there will be less investment from those who would rather not be in a more regulated environment, but that is not the overall picture.
Ian Byrne
Q
Kieran Maguire: If we look at the Premier League, when it was formed in 1992-93, 43% of revenues came from matchday tickets. If we move to 2022-23, we are now down to £1 in every £7 being generated from those. That can be slightly higher for the bigger clubs, and we are not denying that. The success of the broadcasting deals has very much meant that the broadcasting revenues are now dominant, and they now constitute more than half of the total revenues. As far as prices are concerned, it is a sensitive subject. Clubs will say, “We’re still losing money, so therefore we need to target revenue streams. We’re not getting that from broadcast, because the broadcasting rights—”
Ian Byrne
Q
Kieran Maguire: They are. During covid, we saw football matches with no fans and it was a sterile, glorified training exercise—there was no emotion. Having full stadiums is critical.
Ian Byrne
Q
Kieran Maguire: As a football fan, I would say yes. Looking at it purely from a business perspective, if you are selling 100% of your tickets at the current price, economics would say that they should be allowed to charge what they want.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Dr Philippou: That is a very good question. I mean, how long is a piece of string? It depends on what you are looking at. We know what the issues are, so it depends on how targeted what you are asking us to look at is. The issues are pretty well known, so it is about how deep a dive you require—you can tell I worked in forensic accounting, with my “It depends!” But it would take months. It is not something that can be done quickly. It would require proper review to get it right, because if you are basing something on the information in a report, one needs sufficient time and access to be able to provide that information.
Kieran Maguire: The information we have put out in the reports to date has been on the basis of the financial reports published at Companies House. Therefore, we are reliant on clubs producing them on a timely basis and with a level of detail that we can make meaningful conclusions about. I used to do investigations into companies, and it is always nice to have more inside information or management information about budgets and so on, because that allows you to look forwards as well as in the rear view mirror. I think it would be a time-consuming exercise, but it is not an insurmountable one.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Q
Kieran Maguire: The issues with owners are that if an owner’s personal circumstances or intentions change and they have been subsidising or funding clubs, however you want to describe it, it means that under the current environment, things are very precarious. I do not think that the football authorities themselves have sufficient powers to go in and effectively do an Ofsted to the extent that they would perhaps like to at times. That is where the regulator could be broadly more of a benefit than a cost, because it would have regulatory powers and the ability to send in a forensic team to take a look and offer guidance to clubs that may not be willing to listen to it under other circumstances. There is also the stick as well as the carrot in terms of issues with licensing or ownership, which are very much a last resort. That would perhaps focus some minds where people have historically tended not to listen and take no advice.
Dr Philippou: A lot of the issues we have seen with ownership have been in relation to sources of income. I am from the University of Portsmouth, and Portsmouth has unfortunately had two of its former owners jailed for various things relating to fraud and money coming from sources that it perhaps should not have come from. That is quite difficult if you do not have deep access to do proper due diligence. What appears to be in the Bill is access to that information and the ability to request that information, which should hopefully mitigate against some of these issues.
Matt Rodda
Q
Kieran Maguire: As an investigator, you would always want more powers than less, so I think you have to be honest there. At the same time, in terms of protecting the game from over-regulation and being mindful that FIFA does not allow government interference in football, I think we have probably hit a reasonably good sweet spot with regard to the proposals to date.
Dr Philippou: I agree with that.
Robin Millar
Q
Dr Philippou: I think it is a combination of various things. Ultimately, what you have is poor cost control and poor monitoring. Owners have to be mindful of that because, ultimately, at least half of them are putting money into football clubs every year to keep them running, so they are aware that there are cost problems there. You cannot be propping up a technically insolvent club and not know that you are propping it up, so there is that element there. You also have general cost controls —people are aware that they are losing money. It is not something where you can say there is a lack of awareness there; it is a lack of a willingness to do something about it. We saw UEFA bring in financial regulations back in 2010-11. The Premier League brought them in around about 2014. But we are still seeing these problems, even with the financial regulations in place, which tells you that there is an ongoing issue.
Kieran Maguire: What we have in terms of the present model is one of self-regulation, and self-regulation is normally walking hand in hand with self-interest. As far as owners are concerned, and I can understand this from an owner’s perspective, if I bought a football club as a trophy asset and I have unlimited funds, then why should I not spend as much money? What there has been is a trade-off between those owners willing to put in unlimited amounts, those owners wanting to put in limited amounts, and those owners wanting to put in nothing because they see the football industry as an extension of the entertainment industry, with a view to making it profitable on a longer-term basis. That is where we are at present.
The rules have effectively failed to address the loss-making in the business. Loss-making is sustainable until it is not sustainable—until those owners, either individually or collectively, decide to change the rules. Without any form of assistance from the regulator, that would mean that the industry is naturally precarious, because you only have to have, as we said earlier, a change in circumstances, as we saw with Chelsea. We have seen a club such as Bolton Wanderers have a very beneficial owner. His personal circumstances changed due to illness, and then you have a crisis for the club.
Robin Millar
Q
Kieran Maguire: I think it does deal with the financial issues. Effectively, if the regulator becomes the Martin Lewis of football in giving appropriate advice, that can benefit the industry. Many people enter the football industry with very good intentions. They have been successful in their own roles in their own businesses and think they can replicate that in football, and then they are seduced by the nature of football. For example, you run a club on a sustainable basis, and you are in seventh in the Championship in January. Your manager comes to you and says, “I’ve spotted this centre forward—costs £8 million, wants 30 grand a week, can get us into the play-offs. We can be in the Premier League in six months,” and all your common sense goes out of the window. That is part of the joy of football, but it is also one of the reasons why we have resulted in a loss-making industry. Provided the owner is aware of the consequences of their decisions, all you can do is give advisory assistance, rather than telling them what to do.
Dr Philippou: But there is an element of investment fatigue. We see all these great things, it is all going well and people are pumping money in, and then something happens in their other businesses or they lose interest, and that is when things start going wrong in the industry. I guess that is why there is also the non-financial side of the Bill, which looks at the corporate governance and fixes that side of the game too.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Kieran Maguire: In terms of the issues at the bottom of the Premier League, three clubs have just been promoted and have almost been relegated. The three clubs above them—excluding Everton, because if it had not had a points deduction, it would have been on 48 points—have been in the Premier League for two or three seasons, so there is an acclimatisation issue. There is also an issue at the top of the Championship. The clubs that have just been relegated have greater resources than their peer group, and that is going to have a yo-yo effect, which we appear to be locking in on a greater basis. That tends to be more of the case in the Championship and League One, where some clubs are moving. That is driven by the culture of the owners. The system at present encourages overspending. We have not seen that in respect of the three clubs that are being relegated, but we did see it to a greater degree with the clubs that were promoted in 2022.
Dr Philippou: Absolutely, there is that competitiveness issue, which we have seen diminish over time. That has a long-term impact on the commercial side and on broadcasting rights, because the less competitive a league becomes, the less likely people are to watch it and the less likely broadcasters are to put money in, so that can also have an impact.
Mr Betts
Q
Kieran Maguire: You would hope that the parties would be able to sort something out between themselves. If we did not have a regulator, we would be in a very similar position to the one we have at present. The Premier League has no incentive to be more beneficial, in terms of the distribution of money. It would have to be dragged to the table by the regulator, so that is why the backstop powers are important. The EFL is a fantastic league in its own right. The chances are that anybody who has supported a club in the Premier League have also supported it in the EFL.
When it comes to the regulator using last resort powers, it is effectively the same as the Bank of England. The Bank of England is the lender of last resort, but there are alternatives. Surely the same should be true in football. It is testament to the intransigence of the Premier League, in particular, which is unwilling to look at the broader football issues in the country.
Mr Betts
Q
Dr Philippou: I think a lot of the parts of the Bill that look to fix issues relating to the financial sustainability of clubs and corporate governance should in the long term negate the need for intervention, because stuff will be run in a much better way. The issue at present is that if there is no money forthcoming into the EFL, that creates a huge potential financial problem. That is why the backstop powers are there. It is one for the lawyers to debate, really.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Richard Masters, Rick Parry and Mark Ives gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to the new panel. We will now hear oral evidence from: Rick Parry, Chair of the English Football League; Richard Masters, Chief Executive of the Premier League; and Mark Ives, General Manager of the National League. For this session, we have until 11 am.
I call the first Member who wishes to ask questions, Stephanie Peacock.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Richard Masters: We obviously support very strong ownership tests; we believe we have one at the moment. With the Bill, in terms of the way it describes the owners test, I think there are a lot of questions that still need to be asked and we may ask them in our written submission to this Committee. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak to everyone today and to put our perspectives across.
We very much support a strong ownership test. The question about whether it has been successful—I believe it has been more successful over time. Obviously, an ownership test is relatively new in football. Football has been around for centuries; the ownership test is a relatively recent intervention. Football has responded to issues—regulatory issues—as all regulators do. Football is already a highly regulated industry. We—the Premier League—are already regulated by the FA, by UEFA and by FIFA, and we are a regulator ourselves. So, the Bill and the new independent regulator for football are going to be an additional regulatory layer.
In all of our discussions with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we have been quite clear that we would like to continue with our own test and obviously the closeness of those two tests is quite important, and the consistency of results that come out of them is quite important as well.
When you read the Bill, one of the things that you probably notice in comparison with the Premier League’s current test, which is very similar to that of the EFL, is that it will probably capture a broader group of people and it is more subjective. One of the things that we have been quite careful about over the years is to make sure that the test is as objective as possible, because that creates more certainty and less legal challenge. We would like the Committee to think about that as they observe the Bill and to give as much clarity as possible to competition organisers on the issue of ownership.
Rick Parry: Where the regulator can help is in bringing greater transparency. Football does not do transparency very well; it likes to live in the dark. Greater consistency across leagues and statutory powers will be extremely helpful in terms of capturing information. The threat of criminal sanctions for failing to comply is pretty potent and pretty powerful—something we cannot compete with.
We will certainly not be having a parallel test; we do not want duplication. We are very happy to throw our support behind the regulator and recognise that a better test is something that we will be very happy with.
Mark Ives: First of all, thank you for allowing us to be here today; I appreciate that.
From an owners and directors test point of view, we are—from the National League—in a slightly different position than our colleagues in the Premier League and the EFL, in that the National League is governed by the FA regulation for the owners and directors test. I have spoken before about the powers that this Bill will bring with the ODT and I welcome that. I think it will give us, or give you, greater ability to be able to get access to information that we do not have. Although the current test is being reviewed from the FA’s position, it is primarily a self-assessment, which, of course, comes with many problems. I welcome the owners and directors test. I would urge Government to ensure that speed of operation is good, because the time it takes to get somebody approved is really important for takeovers and everything else.
The other challenge with the ODT relates not only to when owners come into a club, but to the question of when, during their lifetime within a club, their suitability changes. We need greater detail on how that will look. When does someone who is a good owner at the start of their tenure suddenly turn out to be a bad owner halfway through that tenure? Of course, it will be difficult, once somebody is in, to make a substantial change—not impossible, but it will be difficult. We need to think how we manage that from a National League perspective. We do not have a queue of people waiting to take over clubs, so we need to think about the consequences of the test on existing owners. Again, I would share the views that the leagues’ action to sense-check that as we move forward and make sure that clubs are compliant is really important.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Richard Masters: I will do my best—thank you for the opportunity to do so. In general, I think we are supportive of the objectives of the Bill, and we want to see those objectives work. We are obviously concerned that what is, to all intents and purposes, a very successful industry is not harmed. It is very important that the Premier League, at the top of it, is able to continue with its success and growth—not just for the sake of the Premier League, but because that success and growth helps to fund the rest of the pyramid. We are happy to share our success, and we have a strong track record of doing so.
We would like this Committee to look at the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions that are unnecessary—proportionate regulatory interventions dealing with the issues that are arising. To use a motoring metaphor, we agree that if you are speeding, there should be regulatory tools to intervene, but we would not want to see the speed limit reduced from 70 mph to 50 mph to keep everybody safe. We think that would be a step too far.
As Mark alluded to, our core concerns are always about increasing the pool of investment that comes into football. The Premier League is successful because it has been able to create an atmosphere where people want to invest and buy football clubs and put their money behind the aspiration of moving up the pyramid. We see examples of that all the time, and we think that is really important. We need a strong and vibrant pyramid. To us, it is about long-term certainty and proportionate intervention. If those things are not correct, we might see some of the unintended consequences that I have explained.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Richard Masters: The Premier League has a number of financial regulatory tools at the moment, such as our PSR regulations, which you will all be aware of. They are really about competitive balance, but also have an aspect of sustainability to them—essentially a limited loss situation. Where clubs are loss making, they have to provide two years of financial information to the league, and if they are loss making beyond a certain threshold, they have to stand behind the business plan of the club and provide a secure owner funding commitment to the league. The Premier League does have sustainability rules in place, as do the EFL and the National League. Perhaps it would be good for the Committee to hear about how all that works. There are measures in place, but they will be different.
What we are seeing in the Bill is prudential regulation, which is born out of the financial services industry—obviously there are not many parallels between banking and football. We are worried that prudential regulation could be too interventionist and could tie up or deter investment to the detriment of the whole football pyramid.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Richard Masters: It is unclear—a lot of this depends not on the technical drafting of the Bill, but the personality of the regulator, who we are yet to meet. Now the appointments have been made, it depends upon how the regulator and its powers are going to be utilised. For example, if the regulator wishes to put financial controls on virtually all the 116 clubs that it wants to license, I believe that will stop investment into football squads and football in general, and will slow down the growth of English football. That is the principal unintended consequence I would be concerned about.
Mark Ives: On unintended consequences, there are a couple of things, particularly when you consider the size of the National League clubs and how they are staffed. The Bill is written in a way that sets out what it intends; it does not give how it is going to achieve those aims. As far as the clubs are concerned, there is massive uncertainty.
As we see it, one of the unintended consequences is the drain on the resources of those clubs because of the duplication of work and the over-bureaucracy that there may be. For example, we already have a licensing system. Our system includes our football finance regulations, which have been activated since 2013. It is worth noting that we are talking about improving the sustainability of our clubs—but the National League, which is the only division that I can talk about, has not had a club going into administration since 2013, since it brought in its financial regulations. That is not a bad record. Our concern is the duplication of that licensing scheme. As the Minister rightly says, there is a referral back to the league regulations. We had hoped that that would go further and put the onus on the league, on the competition, to be the first to react. If that does not work, then the regulator steps in—rather than create a lot of duplication of work for our clubs, as we see it.
The other issue is costs. The Bill is intended to ensure financial sustainability. Yet the concern of this is that, as with all regulators, the people who pick up that bill are those who are being regulated. I am not sure that the clubs fully understand that. When you are at the bottom level of what is being regulated, the fear is the quantum of those costs. If you have a challenge that goes to judicial review from one of the National League clubs, I suspect that the financial cost on that is not going to be too great. However, if one of the top clubs in the Premier League challenges the regulator, the costs on that are going to be really significant. Those costs get passed on to those being regulated, and they could run into millions of pounds, when the cost of those are being borne by clubs at the National League level. In our view the Bill is not strong enough in clarifying what proportionality means. We have been given assurances: we have had some good meetings with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the Minister and the Secretary of State, where assurances are that it will be proportionate. However, we do not understand what “proportionate” is. So, one of the unintended consequences is the financial and human resource burden on our clubs.
Rick Parry: It is incumbent on us to work with the regulator to make sure that this works for the good of the game. We see big pluses in terms of the regulator bringing independence, transparency and consistency across leagues, which is a bit of a disaster area at the moment. We view it positively: everything we have found so far in terms of engagement with DCMS and in terms of the shadow body that is the regulator is that all these concerns can be addressed. It is going to be a tougher environment, but football needs a tougher environment. We have had 30 years to get this right and we have failed.
Richard Masters: Just to answer your question about what plans the bodies are making to adjust to the regulatory world, we will all have to adjust to the new environment that is coming. I am very happy to do so. Like Rick, we are already meeting with the shadow regulatory team on a regular basis and have had good conversations about how it might work in practice. In reality, I think the performance of the regulator can be managed. We will meet that obligation head on and ensure that they get all the information they need, and we will respond at all times.
The issue that we are most concerned about is what impact that might have on the wider system—beyond the very positive objectives of the regulator to give fans a stronger voice—to improve the sustainability of the pyramid and individual clubs, and to avoid some of the issues we have had in the past. We agree with all that, but it is important to make sure it does not impact on the very good success story that we have at the moment.
Mark Ives: Can I echo that and clarify some points about where we stand on the regulator? From day one, and from when Tracey started the fan-led review, we met the review and we were asked whether we wanted to be part of the regulator. We said yes we did, on the understanding that it would not be too onerous for our clubs, and we would keep a mind on the costs. So we are mindful of that. We embraced the regulator. Our position was always that if there is a regulator, we thought it should be the FA, but for well-documented reasons, we know why that cannot happen. So we move on and embrace the regulator as it is.
Our challenges are not about having a regulator; they are about understanding and clarifying how the regulator will work. We embrace it and we will work with it. We have had some very productive meetings with DCMS and discussions all the way through. All we are trying to do is make sure that it is not too onerous and too costly for our clubs, because we have to protect the interests of those clubs, and they need clarity.
Damian Collins
Q
Richard Masters: Let me be clear about what the Premier League’s role in this is. As regulator, it is to perform the test. It is not to decide who the current owner wants to sell this club to. That is his decision. At the moment, he wants to continue to have discussions with 777 about it. The Premier League has made very clear the conditions that have to be met by 777 if it wishes to become the owner of Everton. At the moment, obviously, because the takeover has not been confirmed, I will leave it to the Committee to make its own conclusions about where we are with that.
Rick and Mark have talked about some of the benefits of the regulatory ownership test, in the sense that they will get access to more information that we can have, because we are not a statutory body. So we can only get the information that we are provided with and we have strong investigatory powers.
The other thing that Mark talked about was speed. I accept that takeovers that carry on for a very long time are not good for fan certainty. That is why we have a very big team of people who do nothing else in this. All I would say is that over time, particularly in the Premier League, takeovers are becoming increasingly complex. It is not a small undertaking on the part of the regulator to take this burden on. That is why we want to remain involved with it as well. This is very complicated, and we need to make sure that all those decisions are correct, even if that means taking a little more time to make sure that a decision is correct.
Damian Collins
Q
Richard Masters: It may be that they could come to conclusions quicker. I would imagine that that is possibly correct in that circumstance, but obviously, I cannot imagine what the situation would be like if we had a regulator in the current example that you raise. Obviously, I know a bit more about the background to it all. I cannot say too much about it, but I do think there are some benefits to the regulator working in tandem with leagues on this particular topic. That is true.
Damian Collins
Q
Richard Masters: Maybe a bit like “The X Factor”, you need two green ticks to get in. That is it, and in terms of the Premier League operating its own test, in the unlikely event that the regulator said yes and we said no, that person could not take over that club, and vice versa.
Matt Rodda
Q
Rick Parry: I think so. I do not think there is any reason to be doubtful at this moment, and within football we have been refining the tests that we apply over time. A decade ago, I think the tests were probably inadequate and overly simplistic. We have definitely refined them. We take a closer look at people’s track records, and I am not fearful that the regulator will be unable to do the same.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Q
Richard Masters: As you know, professional football exists in a global marketplace, and the Premier League is, by most available metrics, currently the most popular in the world. We want that to continue, but it is a competitive marketplace. You could not say that 20 years ago, but it is true today, and we would like it to be true in 20 years’ time. We have been able to do that by collective effort, and the clubs continue to invest in creating a really exciting football competition.
I think the key difference between the Premier League and its other European competitors is the competitive nature of it. We can talk about full stadiums, home and away fans, fantastic brands, and the history and tradition of the English game—all those things are incredibly important, but the key difference between us and the Germans, the French, the Spanish and the Italians is that you have jeopardy from top to bottom. That goes to the funding of football and the financial mechanics behind it, and the key ingredients that go towards that competitive nature and the jeopardy in English football. We do not want to damage that jeopardy at all.
In order to be able to better fund the pyramid, we have to be successful, and to be successful, we have to be able to continue to find football-led solutions to the problems we have. The regulator has a specific role, which is to step in when individual clubs have problems and to oversee certain aspects of the game, but I still believe that football needs to be football-led. The three bodies—or four, if you include the FA—can do a good job of that in the future, in the same way that they have done a good job of it so far.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Rick Parry: We think that in a better regulated environment, where there is more clarity and certainty, we will get better-quality owners—there is no reason to believe that we would not. There has been a lot of talk about investment, which is a curious word in football. To me, “investment” means sensible investment in assets that generate returns in football, but it tends to mean excessive spending and then owners moving on. What we are trying to do, in making clubs sustainable, is reduce the dependence on owner funding—as we have heard previously, owner funding is fabulous, until it is not. We have seen it with Mel Morris, we have seen it with Bolton, we have seen it with Reading: owners come in with high ambitions, but either get fed up, run out of money or become ill, and then the clubs fall off a cliff. If we have a better system of redistribution, making club solvent, then we are not dependent on that ownership culture.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Mark Ives: I think that, from a National League perspective, we are in a fortunate position. We run a licensing programme, and part of our ethos anyway, without the regulator, is to properly prepare our clubs to go into the EFL, whether they come from step two, National League North or South, into step one, the national division. If you look at the history of our clubs that have been promoted into the EFL, the vast majority of them have succeeded and continue to do so—this year you have only got to look at Wrexham’s story and everything else. That touches on your issue about foreign investments. Our challenge is to make sure that clubs that come up from step two are suitably prepared, through our licensing programme, to step into being regulated.
Equally, when somebody who is being regulated falls out of step one, sometimes because they have challenges, the issue for us is to ensure that they continue to get the support that the regulator may have given. As they go into step two, it is incumbent on us—it is still our competition—to ensure that they get the same checks and balances, to try to turn around whatever issues are there and give them a chance to grow again.
Ian Byrne
Q
My question is about financial sustainability, the profit and sustainability rules, and the lack of authority within the scope of the Independent Football Regulator. All supporters want a predictable, transparent, principled, proportionate, fair and timely system. Richard, from a Premier League perspective, I think that if you speak to the supporters of the clubs—Everton or Forest—they do not feel as though they have had that. There has been lots of confusion about the whole process and how punishment has been meted out. Then there is what happened with Manchester City—115 charges, but nothing as yet. Why would we not want to protect the integrity of the process—and the Premier League and, when it comes to that, the EFL? Why would we not want to give to the Independent Football Regulator the ability to mete out punishment in a fair and transparent manner?
The Chair
Order. While cases are pending, I ask Members to be careful about naming individual clubs in matters that may be sub judice.
Ian Byrne
Noted, Sir Mark.
Richard Masters: Thankfully, the cases you referenced have concluded now, before the end of the season, which at least gives some certainty. It has been a difficult period. This season has been the first time that the PSR rules have been activated—if we may call it that—in the Premier League. It has been a difficult experience, although Rick has more experience of it, and it is a difficult situation for fans of those clubs to live with, but if we have financial rules, we have to enforce them. I think that most people accept that, if they take a step back.
The question is: does the system work? Is the system transparent? No. The question you are asking is: should the regulator not look after all that? I think that the decision that the Government have taken, which is the correct one, is that this is for football bodies to look after. They are essentially getting involved in the running of the sport and the sporting competitive issues that exist within the game. I would not support, Ian, the regulator looking after those rules. The regulator has a clear remit to look at the sustainability of football clubs.
Ian Byrne
You think it is down to the leagues.
Rick Parry: It is the boundary of where football authorities deal with the rules that govern the competition. As Richard said earlier, part of the role of the PSR rules is competitive balance, rather than the sustainability of individual clubs. There is an element of crossover, but I do think that PSR squad cost control rules, or whatever replaces PSR, should fall firmly with the leagues to operate. We agree on that.
Mark Ives: May I add to that? I think it is important. We have our own financial regulation. If there are gaps in the financial regulation, then challenge the league —tell us where you think those gaps are for us to change. I would argue, as I said earlier, that the history of the clubs at our level is that our financial regulation works. As Richard said, it is it is only as good as ensuring that those regulations are applied, and we have applied them.
Two things about applying the regulations are that it is not just about sanctions, but about helping the clubs to make sure that they do not fall off the edge. In a few high-profile cases in the National League, we have actually been able to save some of those clubs and ensure that they do not go to the wall—I will not name them, but you know who they are. We have been able to assist those clubs to make sure that they survive. To come back to what the Minister said earlier about passing some of the issues over to the leagues, this is one example where we should have total autonomy to do our thing, and for the regulator to step in if we are not doing it.
Robin Millar
Q
Richard Masters: I am probably going to start repeating myself. I think that light-touch, proportionate regulation can work, and when the Committee is scrutinising the Bill, it should try to ensure that that is the case—that the regulator has the powers to intervene at the right moment. One of the things that we have argued for—
Robin Millar
Sorry, just to be explicit, my question is whether you think that the regulator is there to control bad actors or whether the regulator is there to intervene when it sees that somebody is about to make a mistake.
Richard Masters: I think they are both the same thing. I do not think that we should put in place broad protective measures to ensure that nobody can ever hurt themselves. What I do think is that the regulator intends to be preventive, and we will be supportive of preventive regulation to stop bad things happening, and of the regulator having the power when bad things are happening. I think those three things are subtly different and quite nuanced, and I hope that the Bill can reflect that.
It comes back to the personality of the regulator itself, which has not been formed yet; key appointments have not been made. If the Bill is structured in a particular way, and the personality of the regulator is such that it enforces on a proportionate and light-touch basis, I think that it can be made to work and will help football.
Robin Millar
Mr Parry?
Rick Parry: I would like to broaden the conversation and touch on the regulator’s systemic responsibilities, which we think are really important. The purpose of the EFL, which we defined four years ago, is to make clubs sustainable. As I said earlier, that means reducing the dependence on owner funding. To do that, you need redistribution to make them solvent and better regulation to make sure they are not profligate; the two must go hand in hand.
We think that the Bill goes a very long way towards addressing the regulatory aspects properly. What it does not do is address redistribution properly. It has ducked the key issues on that. The danger is that, if it is completely effective on regulation but ineffective on redistribution, it will just be failing to license clubs, and we will have many EFL clubs not being licensed and going out of business. That cannot possibly be the objective of the regulator.
Robin Millar
Thank you. Mr Ives?
Mark Ives: It is an interesting question. As you say, the differences between the three competitions are striking. If I understood you correctly, the question was about there being failings in all three. If we are talking about financial sustainability, I am at a loss to see where that failing has been from a National League perspective, for the reasons that I outlined before. That is one of the reasons why I support a lighter-touch position from the regulator, but we need to ensure that there is a safety net there for the sport, so that you to step in when that is needed. As I say, from a National League perspective, the record has been quite strong. When the fan-led review first kicked off, there was a misunderstanding as to what the financial regulations in the National League are, and it was not until, I think, the second meeting that we had with the fan-led review, when that was explained, that people understood and realised what steps are being taken by the National League. That is the background as to why we think there is a lighter touch.
Mr Betts
Q
Richard Masters: We do not think that parachutes should be part of the backstop power.
Mr Betts
So you lobbied to have that included.
Richard Masters: Well, when asked for our opinion, did we express it? Yes, we did, and I am very happy to repeat it here, Clive. The backstop power is a very novel power, and it should remain so. It should incentivise football-led solutions, which I believe it intends to do. It drives mediation and negotiation. At the very end, if the people at this table cannot come to an agreement, it is able to impose a solution in one specific area, which is solidarity—the funding of the rest of the pyramid, normally from the Premier League down. Any party has the ability to trigger that mechanism once every five years. All of that has been discussed with all of the people at this top table along the way, and it is right that it was, and right that everybody had their opportunity to express their views. Solidarity, parachute payments, is part of the football pyramid and has been for over 30 years. This is not just between the Premier League and the EFL, but intra-EFL and from the EFL into the national league as well, where there is a generous parachute system for clubs coming in and out of the national league and into league two of the EFL.
Solidarity is relatively new. It came around in 2007 when Lord Mawhinney, once of this parish, agreed a small deal with Richard Scudamore, the then chief executive to the Premier League. Over the past many years we have agreed a number of different arrangements. The current arrangement—which is still in existence; there is no cliff-edge—was agreed in 2019. At the moment, the amount of solidarity that comes out of the Premier League to the EFL is around about £130 million a year. This is the part that we think should be adjudicated on if there is to be a backstop power, not parachutes. Why not parachutes? Because they are a competitive balance tool. They obviously have an impact on sustainability as well, as all financial regulations do. Without parachute payments, the Premier League would not be competitive at the bottom end. You will hear from clubs this afternoon that will be able to talk about parachutes from their own perspectives. One is Brighton, which came up without a parachute.
If a club wants to be competitive within the Premier League, which is a brutal meritocracy and that is why people love it, then you have to be financially supported. That is the principal purpose of it. If you want the Premier League to be competitive and to be the economic powerhouse that it is, and to continue to redistribute its success, then we have to have parachute payments and I do not believe they should form part of this regulatory regime.
Mr Betts
Q
Rick Parry: Yes. First of all, we think that the way the clause is drafted is intellectually incoherent because it says that parachutes cannot be included in the definition of revenue—they are not revenue, they are distribution. To take Richard’s point that they should be used separately from solidarity, it is interesting that solidarity payments to championship clubs are literally pegged to parachute payments. They are defined as being 11% of a parachute payment, so they are intertwined.
In terms of the practical effect of what the clause says, if we look at the 2021 figures, five parachute clubs received £233 million between them and 19 championship clubs received £79 million in solidarity. So what we are saying is that we can apply the backstop and all its might to the £79 million, but we cannot touch the £233 million. That seems to be the ultimate definition of fiddling while Rome burns. Why you can view one without the other, I do not even begin to understand.
In terms of the effect of parachutes, just in case people are not across it, if we go back to 2010-11—which is not that long ago—they totalled £30 million. They represented 7% of the aggregate turnover of all championship clubs. By 2020-21, they had risen to £233 million and 39% of the aggregate turnover of the championship clubs. They have become the cuckoo in the championship nest. They are enormous. So if you exclude them from the backstop, you might as well not bother with a backstop, frankly.
Mr Betts
Q
Richard Masters: Sorry, Clive—
Mr Betts
The EFL have given us their understanding of the current distribution of funding within the Premier League and the EFL, particularly around media funding, and what sort of changes they would like to see. I do not think we have had a submission from the Premier League identifying what your understanding of the position is and what changes, if any, you would like to see.
Richard Masters: We have our current agreement and it was agreed in 2019.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Q
Richard Masters: It is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had—is the funding of football correct? That should be reviewed on a periodic basis. We have an agreement that stretches out way into the future and either party can terminate it after three years. The current agreement is about to become five years old, so once the state of the game report is done, the regulator will turn its mind to other issues. We are very happy to express our views on the distributions within football; we are not shy of doing that.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Mark Ives: We are talking about the backstop?
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Richard Masters: I had not likened it to nuclear armageddon but it is an important issue. We have made attempts to come to a new deal but it has not worked yet. As I have said repeatedly, football solutions are the right way forward and the best solutions. I do not wish to be in a situation where the backstop power is being activated by any party, so I agree with you in that respect.
Rick Parry: We take a rather different view inasmuch as we do not see it as being armageddon or catastrophic. Football has manifestly failed and it will because the market forces are such that it is not an equal negotiation. We have very little negotiating power. We cannot threaten to leave and attach ourselves to the Bundesliga or La Liga, so we are basically stuck.
We think that if the regulator has clearly defined objectives, in terms of systemic sustainability, then as the fan-led review said, as the “One Year On” report said, as the White Paper said, and as the Government response said, it is the regulator that should have targeted powers of intervention. Intervention implies doing something positive. At the moment, the regulator is not actually allowed to do anything at all because it is reliant on the two leagues—the bodies that it is regulating—to step in. We believe the regulator should have those powers. The fan-led review is an enormously important and extremely helpful piece of work—an independent, objective, transparent study that has never been done before. The review will have a view on parachute payments and we are not, by the way, saying there should be no parachutes; we are discussing their level and the ability to fix them independently. We believe that, to make the Bill work, in the event that the fan-led review highlights problems, the regulator should be able to institute the process. We do not think it is armageddon. We do not think it is nuclear. We think it is logical.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Rick Parry: No, we do not see it that way because so much hinges on the fan-led review—on the objective study. If the EFL were to trigger the backstop—and we hope we would not need to, or we never would—we would actually see that the EFL position would be something very similar to the fan-led review. It is the fan-led review that will inform the regulator as to whether it is able to meet its strategic objectives. It is not for the leagues to decide whether the regulator can meet its objectives; it is for the regulator to decide. If we were pushing forward a solution, I think the likelihood is it would be extremely close to what the fan-led review recommended. Why would it not be? It is not Russian roulette at all.
Richard Masters: Mark should definitely speak, but the only thing I would say is that you can observe the difference in incentives that now exists because of the regulatory power—the backstop power. It is the third person in this discussion. One of the issues that I would like to highlight to the Committee is that the backstop power creates different incentives because there is a third person who will adjudicate in the end. Since 2007, we have been able to come to agreements bilaterally, away from the gaze of the public eye, and do increasingly generous deals and share our success. We are happy to continue in that vein. I would like to point that out.
Mark Ives: There is an additional dimension for me, as far as the backstop is concerned. The backstop is really important to our clubs. We are at the base of the system, as I said earlier. We only get money from the Premier League. The solidarity payments we get from the Premier League are extremely helpful. However, there is a gap between our clubs and the EFL clubs. We could come to an agreement with the Premier League over our next round of solidarity payments. It is extremely helpful and, as it looks on the surface, it is very good. We could accept that. However, then there could be a deal between the Premier League and the EFL that has an impact of widening that gap, and that is not good for the game because the gap is already very wide.
I urge you to look at the difference in the solidarity payments across the game, including ours, and where that difference is. It would seem to be difficult, then, for us to be able to activate the backstop. We hope we never need to do it. However, it is an important aspect of the game to enable us to make sure that that gap does not get wider.
We know where we are; we know where we sit in the pyramid, and we are proud to sit there. However, we cannot afford for that gap to get wider. I would urge the wording of—
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Q
Richard Masters: It is critically important and we look forward to playing our part in it. The key issue we have is in relation to its regularity. It should come as quickly as it can, and be done properly and efficiently. However, after that, we believe it should not be at three-year intervals, which would lead to almost perpetual discussion about the state of football. There should be a longer period of time. We are suggesting that five years is the appropriate time for the regularity of those reports.
Football has had a lot of uncertainty—through covid, and through the regulatory interventions that we are now talking about. I believe that football does better when it has certainty. Our commercial deals are becoming longer, so we are doing four-year commercial agreements. I think the EFL’s are five years. Most of our international revenue is tied up over six-year agreements. If you look at other industries, Ofcom’s review is every five years. I think the telecoms industry review is every 10 years. Three years is incredibly short. It would be like painting the Forth bridge—once you have finished one report, you will have to start another. It is great for the economists and the consultants; it is bad for the competition organisers and the clubs.
The Chair
Q
Rick Parry: I echo what Richard said in terms of the report being incredibly important. It is important that it is comprehensive and able to address every issue facing the game, including parachute payments. The big point we would like to make is that we think the three-year interval for the first report to be completed is much too long. We think that should be a maximum of a year. We see no reason why it cannot be completed within a year. We actually think three years is fine, inasmuch as eight of the last Premier League TV deals have been on a three-year cycle; the champions league TV deal is on a three-year cycle; parachute payments operate on a three-year cycle. Football operates on a three-year cycle. However, the big report is the first one, and we think that the subsequent ones would be fine-tuning; they are not going to be a complete reinvention.
Mark Ives: I will be quick. I echo the importance of the report and it will address things that the regulator does not cover. It will address things that are important to our game and that the fan-led review spoke about, things that are outside the scope of the regulator—and I understand why they are outside its scope—such as three up, three down, protection of players, and all of that sort of stuff. It is really important that the emphasis on those things is not lost, and we have the ability to deal with that. The report is there to highlight the wider issues within the game.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Kevin Miles, Chief Executive of the Football Supporters’ Association. Could the witness please introduce themselves for the record.
Kevin Miles: I am indeed Kevin Miles, Chief Executive of the Football Supporters’ Association. I am very pleased to have been involved in the fam-led review process up to this point.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Q
Kevin Miles: The succinct answer is, generally, yes. We are very supportive of the Bill and the reforms it sets out to achieve. We sadly drew the conclusion a few years ago that football has proved incapable of regulating itself, and it is interesting to hear Rick Parry drawing exactly the same conclusion.
We very much support the establishment of the independent regulator and the three primary objectives of sustainability, resilience, and heritage. There is a lot to like in the proposals—the enhanced owners and directors test; the club licensing system, which we think is proportional and puts advocacy first, which is a positive approach; the oversight of financial distribution; and the backstop powers which, indeed, I think are very important. Clearly, as the national fans’ organisation, we are also particularly pleased to see the provisions requiring clubs to meet the fan engagement threshold. We do have some concerns about the strengths of those requirements, and we think perhaps the Bill is not perfect, but that is part of the process, and is why we are here.
I would like to say that we have been involved in discussions with DCMS officials and ministers in preparation for this, and I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to their work, particularly the officials. Ministers are wonderful as well, but the team at DCMS have been excellent in their rigorous examination of all the points that we put forward. Their response has been—where necessary—challenging and combative, but it has been thorough and very well-applied, so thanks to them.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Kevin Miles: I do think it is important that supporters trusts, their role and their position are recognised in this process. We are not expecting exclusivity for supporters trusts as the vehicle for fan engagement, but we do think that those trusts—based as they are on one-member, one-vote, and themselves regulated through the Financial Conduct Authority—are effectively reflective of fan engagement when it has not always been welcomed by clubs but been deemed necessary by fans. This is self-organisation by fans on a democratic and constructive basis.
Those organisations have earned their spurs; that was not a football team reference, by the way. They have done the preparatory work, and made large contributions to the process of the fan-led review as well, and it is important that the existing supporters trusts do have that recognised, and are taken seriously. It is important that the fan engagement process, as it is developed under the oversight of the regulator, is not used by clubs as a means of sidelining supporters trusts and the work that they have done. They need to be included and involved in that process.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Kevin Miles: We have had a long discussion with officials about exactly what the scope of engagement with fans should be. We think the fan engagement regime needs to be robust, it needs to be appropriate to the circumstances of all the regulated clubs and it needs to be based on democratic principles, with the composition of the fan representatives being determined independently of the clubs themselves. We have had some conversations about what the particular terms of the content of fan engagement should be and we have been talking to officials and Ministers about that. The list includes strategic direction and objectives of the club, the club’s business priorities, operational matchday issues, the club’s heritage and the club’s plans relating to additional fan engagement. That is as it currently stands.
When we have asked officials about specific examples of that, they have come back, for instance, on ticket pricing, saying “We expect those to be included in business priorities and operational and matchday issues.” However, there is currently a set-up in the Premier League of fan advisory boards that are required, under the Premier League’s rules, to engage with clubs. It seems to officials in the DCMS, as a matter of common sense, that ticket pricing would be one of the things that fans would discuss with their clubs. It seems to me a matter of common sense that ticket pricing is one of the things that fans would discuss with their clubs.
Yet, in the Premier League system, our members tell us that at Newcastle United, the fan advisory board was given three days’ notice of the ticket price increases without any consultation. At Fulham, there is no fan advisory board, but the supporters’ clubs there got four hours’ notice with an embargo before the announcement of ticket price increases. Nottingham Forest announced its prices without any discussion with its fan advisory board or the trust. Similar representations have been made to us about similar experiences at Bournemouth, Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool. That is happening already, and that is why we think that perhaps it would be useful to have in the Bill the additional words “including ticket prices”, just to make it explicitly clear.
The general point is that there is a lot in the Bill that depends on the view the regulator takes about what is included and the guidance that is given to the regulator. We would appreciate really strong statements from Ministers in the course of this process. That might help us to avoid the necessity of amending the Bill, but a strong direction from Ministers about what should be in scope and what is required of fan engagement to fill some of those gaps would be really useful.
Stuart Andrew
Q
I remember when I was first appointed, the first meeting I had was with you and with other fans. It was clear from that meeting that some clubs do engagement extremely well and, as you have just alluded to, there are others that do it differently. Given that fan engagement is part of the licensing regime, do you think that that is going to be sufficient to bring about a significant impact on the quality of fan engagement that we are currently seeing across the board? That is, are we levelling up, to coin a phrase?
Kevin Miles: I very much hope so, and I am optimistic in that regard. It is the first time that we will have had a requirement from clubs to engage with the fans and, to use the Prime Minister’s words, to put the fans’ voice “front and centre” of all those discussions. I do think, though, that there are a lot of details still to be worked out about how that actually looks.
There are some clubs, as you say, that are very good, but one of the illustrations of the limitations of self-regulation has been that when the leagues have been trying to put together their own requirements on fan engagement, because it has to be voted on by their members and agreed by their rulebook, the lowest common denominator tends to be put into the rulebook. We know that there are clubs that will resist the idea. There are owners who think they have nothing to benefit from in listening to the fanbase—their customer base, if you like. We know from experience that there are some who will do everything that they can to get around this. We will need to have an underpinning of that in the regulatory system, and some monitoring of it through the club licensing system. We recognise that this is challenging, because it cannot simply be a look at what structures are put in place. The regulator will have to do more than just monitor that there is a fan advisory board notionally in place. There will have to be some evaluation and examination of the content and spirit of the fan engagement. We are not expecting a fan veto on club decisions, but we are expecting that the fan voice is not just heard but listened to and given due consideration.
Evaluating that is a more complex process. Somebody referred earlier—I think in the first witness panel—to the possibility of Ofsted-type investigations. Maybe in some cases it will require the regulator to be able to consult the fan groups to see how they think it has been done, and to make its own evaluation about whether the spirit of what is intended here is actually being carried forward. That will need to be underpinned by requirements in the licensing condition.
Ian Byrne
Q
Kevin Miles: Absolutely. If you look at that clause, you see that it is about the principles of the regulator. It currently reads that the regulator should,
“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with
(i) clubs,
(ii) owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs, and
(iii) competition organisers”.
We think that it is in the spirit of the rest of the Bill if a further provision is included that says “supporters and supporter organisations”. If the Bill really is about giving fans a voice at the heart of the game, the regulator should have that as part of those regulatory principles.
I cannot help thinking that this is an oversight rather than a conspiracy. Actually, the spirit of all the engagement we have had with the Department and with Ministers has been precisely that the supporters’ input into the regulation of the game would be an important component. But I think there’s a requirement for it to go on the face of the Bill in that clause.
Ian Byrne
Q
Kevin Miles: Again, what I do not want to do is put a whole shopping list of items into the Bill, because I think that is problematic. We would support some clear direction in the guidance notes about what should be required from clubs. You have identified another important issue. It is a complicated issue, and it is not likely to be solved on a club-by-club basis. However, the idea that we could face a situation where a club declines to discuss with its fan advisory board as part of its fan engagement process an issue as important and impactful as supporters being able to turn up to the games and support their team—which is so important to so many people—seems to me to be absurd. It is common sense that those issues should be part of the discussion, and it is sad to think that there are clubs that do not approach it with common sense and want to discuss it. I think it should be required.
Damian Collins
Q
Kevin Miles: Yes. One of the ideas that we are quite keen on is that, as part of the corporate governance code, there could be a requirement of clubs to have independent directors. In many other aspects of corporate governance codes, there is a particular responsibility on independent directors. Independent non-executive directors do have consideration for the views of other stakeholders in the work of a company. The idea that an INED in a football club could be required by a governance code to have particular responsibility for making sure that fans’ views are taken into consideration would be a very useful addition.
Damian Collins
Q
Kevin Miles: Yes, I think that that is one of the few gaps in the Bill. On the heritage items around playing name, shirt colours, club badge and that sort of thing, there are clear FA rules, and it was clear that the fan voice on those issues will be very important. The FA’s heritage rules do not cover grounds. They have found that difficult to tackle from the point of view of their rules. But the idea that the fan view on some of these issues should not be taken into consideration is an omission. We appreciate that there are other issues involved in staging a relocation. There are big economic issues et cetera. We are not necessarily saying that fans should have a veto over a business decision, but certainly they should have a level of consultation and input into that process.
As an aside, I think we should clearly define the UK-based supporters. It is entirely possible that with some of the clubs these days, given their international fanbase, you could find a huge majority of the football club’s supporter base in Shanghai quite ambivalent about whether the stadium moves 40 miles down the road. There would be a very different feeling among the people who have an extra 40 miles to travel to their home game. So I think it should be the UK supporter base that is consulted in those cases. That consultation should be enshrined.
The Chair
We move from the fans’ views to the person who started all this with the fan-led review—Tracey.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Kevin Miles: Clearly, I have been sat listening with a great deal of interest to what has gone before. The organisation has a view on the issue of parachute payments. We think they need to be in scope for consideration. We are also convinced of the need, in extremis if required, for the regulator to be able to trigger their own backstop powers. That is important. I am sure this will come up in discussion later, but I understand that you, Tracey, have tabled an amendment to adjust the wording about taking cognisance of Government foreign policy, and changing that from something that the regulator “must” do to something that the regulator “may” do. That is important because it would underline the independence of the regulator, which I think will be an important issue.
I could talk all day—I know you will not allow me to do so. The Bill is not perfect. There are areas that we would love to see strengthened, but if this Bill goes through entirely unamended, it is a huge step forward from the point of view of football. This is an important process for us. On a lot of what we have been seeking to get football to do itself, which it has failed to do, this Bill provides a solution. It fills a space and provides a regulatory function that has been lacking. Clearly, there are elements that we will continue to engage with Ministers and officials on, particularly the fan engagement stuff.
A lot of what we are talking about here is clarifying and nailing down. I am going to speak bluntly to people who understand this. At the moment, in a parliamentary process, we are aware that we have a little bit of leverage here. I would like to pin down as much of this as we can in the process of drawing this together, rather than just hoping for the best later. I think a lot of Members will share our concerns about the fan engagement. We want to make it meaningful; it must have a lasting impact. We do not want to be coming back to this and looking at the limitations—let’s get it right now. It is in that spirit that we are raising all these issues around fan engagement.
Robin Millar
Q
Kevin Miles: It takes us a long way in the right direction. I think that if fans have a meaningful voice in every club, and the clubs are the ones who cast the votes in the leagues and their decision-making processes, the fan view should start to filter its way through. Clearly, we are never going to be completely satisfied.
I would also like to say that I am sitting here as the fans’ voice. I speak not just as an individual, but on the basis of the input that we have had from fans’ groups up and down the country. I need to thank my team from the FSA for the work they have done in getting this far. They work in a vary variegated landscape. There are some clubs that are really good at engaging with their fanbase and the local communities, and they deserve the credit for that. There are others where, sadly, it will need some sort of intervention to make sure that they are dragged up to at least the minimum standard. I hope we are in a process now where we can achieve that.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Kevin Miles: To be honest, I think anyone running a club who does not want to engage with their fanbase is making a misjudgment. Even from a business point of view, I cannot imagine any other sector of the economy where a business has a customer base who are this incredibly brand-loyal. They are not going to wander off somewhere else. They want to see the business thrive and succeed, and will volunteer expertise and experience of opinion in how that business could be improved and taken forward. It is a customer base that is aware of the importance of clubs to communities and local areas. In any other sector of the economy, people would bite your hand off for the opportunity to have that sort of ingrained and free-of-charge input from a customer base. I find it partly incredible the idea that football clubs would have any different approach to it.
It is absolutely true that football fans can be fickle, extremely vocal, and very passionate about some of these issues. We must find the mechanisms for constructive engagement to harness that, but I would honestly say to anybody who thinks this will be a problem that they are misjudging their own fanbase. One of the things that came across in the fan-led review was the quality of the input and understanding from supporters’ organisations. They do not have a particular financial vested interest, but they are hugely invested not only in their own clubs, but in the pyramid of the game as a whole. That is a huge asset to the game.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions in this morning’s sitting. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank all our witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon in the Boothroyd Room to continue taking oral evidence. I ask Members to turn up five to 10 minutes early, just to sort out the lines of questioning.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2024 - (14 May 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedules 2 to 4.
Clauses 29 to 32 stand part.
Clause 79 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary.
Clause 28 refers to the consequential amendments to do with part 1. The clause states which schedule contains which consequential amendments applicable to England and Wales. Consequential amendments revise existing legislation to ensure the law works effectively following the introduction of the Bill. This is a standard, supplementary clause that ensures the measures in part 1 of the Bill for England and Wales function as intended.
Consequential amendments that come into force two months after the Bill is passed are included in schedule 2, which amends several pieces of legislation including the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, the Health Act 2006, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017.
Consequential amendments that come into force six months after the Bill is passed are included in schedule 3, which amends the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 and the Children and Families Act 2014.
Consequential amendments that come into force on 1 January 2027 are included in schedule 4, which amends several pieces of legislation including the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986, Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, the Police Reform Act 2002, the Courts Act 2003, the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, the Health Act 2009, the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the Children and Families Act 2014.
Schedules 2, 3 and 4 help the Bill to function effectively within the existing legislative framework and ensure that measures in the existing legislation work as intended following the Bill’s introduction.
Clause 29 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations that are consequential on part 1 of the Bill. Those regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation passed before the Bill or later in the same Session of Parliament as the Bill or an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru passed before this Bill. Regulations may amend primary legislation as well as secondary legislation.
During the development of the Bill, every effort has been made to identify and make provision for any required amendments to primary legislation. However, as the Bill brings together legislation made over the last century there is a small likelihood that further consequential amendments may be required to enable the Bill to function effectively. It is therefore prudent that the Government should have the power to make such changes via secondary legislation. Any regulations amending primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure in line with guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I now move on to transitional and transitory provisions to do with part 1, which are relevant to England and Wales. Clause 30 provides that the programme of enforcement under clauses 20 and 21 should apply to existing tobacco and vape restrictions in the period before the new tobacco and vape measures come into force. That ensures that the programme of enforcement in the Bill continues to apply to offences despite different provisions coming into effect at different dates. In practice, that means that in the six months following Royal Assent, the programme of enforcement applies to the current restrictions on the sale of nicotine products to under-18s.
In the period following Royal Assent, before 1 January 2027, the programme of enforcement applies to the current age of sale restrictions for tobacco, breaches of the sale of unpackaged cigarettes and breaches of the requirements for age of sale notices. Trading standards is currently obliged to consider its programme of enforcement each year, and this clause replaces that obligation. The clause is important to the functioning of the Bill, as it will ensure that effective enforcement regimes are in place for the time between Royal Assent and the commencement of provisions in the Bill.
Clause 31 provides that the fixed penalty notice regime in the Bill should apply to breaches of existing tobacco and vape age of sale restrictions in the period before the new tobacco and vape age of sale restrictions come into force. That will ensure that trading standards has additional tools available to take swift and proportionate enforcement action on under-age sales without delay. Some enforcement provisions in the Bill come into force before the offences that they relate to, and clause 32 therefore provides general transitional provisions so that enforcement is aligned with the coming into force dates of different measures.
Finally, I come to the commencement of the Bill. Clause 79 provides the commencement dates for different clauses and parts of the Bill across the United Kingdom. The clause helps the measures in the Bill to function effectively. I commend clause 28, schedules 2, 3 and 4 and clauses 29, 30, 31, 32 and 79 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Clauses 28 to 32 deal with transitional arrangements after the Bill is passed and before some of its new regulations come into effect to make consequential amendments to previous Acts of Parliament that will be replaced by the new measures in this Bill. I have looked through the schedules and consequential amendments, and I am satisfied that they tie in with the measures in the Bill that we have discussed.
However, I will raise a few concerns, as the schedules relate to the commencement of various clauses of the Bill. For example, the loophole in existing legislation on the free distribution of vapes to under-18s that we discussed should be closed urgently, yet the Government have specified that that should commence only within six months of the Bill’s being passed. Can the Minister explain why she is not taking swifter action? It has already been two and a half years since we proposed changes to the law on this and that the Government take that up. Who is the Minister worried about inconveniencing by introducing the regulations quickly, apart from those who would seek to addict children to vapes? I fail to see what legitimate business could risk being disrupted by going faster here, given that clause 9 specifies that it applies
“in the course of business”,
so it would not necessarily impact the use of vapes as nicotine replacement therapies.
There is also a general point to make about timing. If we soon have a general election, the short campaign will rob us of six weeks of the normal course of business and many of the provisions in the Bill, including the consequential amendments on previous Acts of Parliament, will take effect within two months of the Bill’s passing. No doubt the civil service will ably do its job for the most part in preparing relevant authorities and retailers for the commencement of some of the new powers, but what can the Minister do to reassure me that a plan is already in place for the programme of work that needs to happen so that the transition is as smooth as possible?
Clauses 30 and 31 make it clear that local trading standards may conduct programmes of enforcement and issue fixed penalty notices for the breach of existing tobacco age of sale legislation until the new progressive rise in the age of sale comes into effect in 2027. I see nothing to argue with here, and likewise I have no issue with the transitional provisions detailed in clause 32.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Let me respond to the point about the delay in coming into force. We seek to provide the right balance between giving retailers sufficient time to implement the measures and bringing the Bill into force as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause provides that part 1 of the Bill and any regulations made under powers in part 1 bind the Crown. The effect of this is that the new age of sale restrictions for tobacco and vaping products for England and Wales apply to all bodies and persons acting as servants of the Crown. That includes Government Departments, prisons run by His Majesty’s prison service and members of the armed forces. The Crown itself may not be prosecuted for an offence under this part, but that is not the case for persons in the service of the Crown, such as civil servants or prison employees. This is a standard and supplementary clause. I commend it to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I have no detailed comments to make on this clause and we are happy to give it our support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Interpretation of Part 1
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clauses 34 and 35 set out the definitions of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products for interpretation within the Bill. Clause 36 substitutes the definition of “tobacco product” in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.
Clause 34 sets out definitions for the purpose of interpreting part 1 of the Bill. A tobacco product is defined as
“a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way.”
All tobacco products are harmful for health, so this revised definition will ensure that all future novel tobacco products are captured by the legislation.
Another significant definition is “vaping product”, which means either a vape—a device—or a vaping substance, which means
“a substance, other than tobacco, that is intended to be vaporised by a vape”.
A vaping product is one that contains nicotine as well as one that does not.
Clause 35 provides a definition of “nicotine product”, used throughout part 1 of the Bill. The definition used is to capture other consumer nicotine delivery devices and products, such as nicotine pouches, that are not currently regulated but whose use has increased among young people. This definition is important to ensure that we capture the right types of products that might be targeted at or used by children in the future through any secondary legislation that the Government introduce to protect children from future harm and addiction.
Clause 36 substitutes the definition of “tobacco product” in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This ensures that all future novel tobacco products are captured by the advertising and display bans under the Tobacco and Advertising Promotion Act. I commend clauses 34, 35 and 36 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
This is, of course, an extremely important part of the Bill, as it defines many of the terms used in it. We know how adept the industry has become at worming its way around the spirit of regulations that Parliament has debated and agreed in the past. The ban on menthol cigarettes is one example. The clause sets out a series of definitions of what is covered by various terms that we have been using, such as “herbal smoking products”, “retail packaging” and “cigarette papers”. It is very important.
We know, and I think we should expect, that the industry will innovate in response to this legislation, and not necessarily in helpful ways. We must ensure that the wording of the definitions we use is specific enough not to have unintended consequences, but broad enough that we do not allow industry to get around them.
I appreciate that this is all tricky, but I have a few quick comments. I mentioned when we debated clause 11 that there is no definition of “retailer” in the Bill, and my concern related to vending machines. Can the Minister please provide clarity on which powers granted under this Bill enable Government to regulate vending machines for vapes and other nicotine products, if that was deemed necessary? If she cannot answer now, can she please write to me on that?
I also want to raise the issue of accessories. I mentioned the ban on menthol cigarettes introduced in 2020, which was no doubt a cautionary tale for us in ensuring that we give careful thought to designing regulations on flavoured vapes. A study published in the journal Tobacco Control, and part-funded by Cancer Research UK, surveyed 66,000 adults in England, Wales and Scotland from October 2020—five months after the menthol ban was introduced—to March 2023. It found that the number of adult smokers who reported using menthol-flavoured cigarettes at the start of the study period stayed stable at 14%, compared with 16% two and half years earlier. That may simply indicate the size of the illicit market, but the survey also found that only 15% of those who smoked menthol-flavoured cigarettes reported buying from illicit sources, such as under the counter: a proportion similar to those who smoked non-flavoured cigarettes. That instead suggests that the tobacco industry has quite adept legal loopholes to circumvent the ban.
Researchers think that that indicated that people are using legal accessories, including menthol-flavoured drops, filter balls or cards, or that they are purchasing cigarettes perceived to contain menthol flavouring without it being labelled as such. We will come back to the issue of defining flavours and those specific loopholes in other clauses, but I want to ask here about accessories such as drops, flavour cards and so on. I have looked up those products online and they are blatantly marketed for use with cigarettes—we can buy 25 packs of “rizla menthol extreme infusion flavour cards” for £9 on Amazon.
What lessons have the Government learned from that? They were meant to publish a review of the legislation in 2021, but as far as I am aware, they did not. Have the Government looked at an expanded definition of tobacco products that would include accessories? If it is appropriate to look at something more narrow and targeted in its scope, would the Minister consider specifically looking at clause 59 on the flavour of tobacco products? Expanding the regulation-making powers to include tobacco-related products and accessories would enable regulations to be designed to capture menthol flavourings and all its derivatives and analogues, including add-on accessories to cigarettes to mask the taste of tobacco. I appreciate that the Minister has until now said that we should not let perfect be the enemy of good, but that is quite a crucial issue.
First, as I mentioned, the Government already promised to review that a few years ago, so I hope that they have a considered response to those questions either way. Secondly, the same principles apply to the flavours of vapes. With the disposable bans, consumers are effectively being encouraged to assemble their devices themselves to reduce waste. If we do not think carefully about the issue of accessories, I am concerned that we will see similar workarounds in that market too, which will undermine the efficacy of the legislation. If the Minister does not have the information to hand, could she please write to me on that?
Clause 35 provides a definition of “nicotine product” that, as we have heard, captures things that are not vapes or tobacco products, and could include things such as nicotine pouches. In the national conversation about vapes, we could easily see how more unscrupulous companies that have been marketing to children would look to pivot to other products if we do not capture them with this Bill and the regulations that it allows for.
I reiterate my earlier question to ensure that the Minister takes it away. Given the inclusion of that definition of “nicotine product” in the Bill, where does she see it necessary for the Government to introduce further regulation of those products—for example, whether they should be included in a notification process or something similar? We of course support those powers and I think the Committee agree on that, but I am keen to understand how advanced her and the Government’s thinking is on this.
Finally, clause 36 amends the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, which was brought in under the Labour Government. That seems eminently sensible and I support it. While we are on the subject, the Minister mentioned in the first line-by-line debate that she has recently written to the Advertising Standards Authority about its work and the trends it is seeing. I would be very interested in seeing its response and I would be grateful if the Minister could share that with me too.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am not going to reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, but I want to add my voice to those who are very concerned about ensuring that the Bill takes full account of all the different products. During the course of the last few days of debate, we have heard about the large number of different products out there. I think it is profoundly important that we do all we can to try to look to the future and ensure that there are as few loopholes as possible for the tobacco and vaping companies to take advantage of.
As we have heard, they are very able and enthusiastic about doing so. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether the clause does enough, or whether she shares my concern that there are things we cannot conceive of yet that will be in the minds of those companies. As we consider the Bill, we need to ensure that we are not leaving gaps that will be rapidly filled by products that will harm people, particularly young people.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As all hon. Members know, the whole point of the Bill—its definitions and secondary legislation—is to enable us to stay ahead of the horrendous trade of trying to get children addicted so that they can then be captivated, and the novel ways in which big tobacco and the vaping industry are trying to capture people while they are still too young to understand the long-term harms. That is what lies behind the Bill, so hon. Members do not need to be concerned that we are missing the opportunity to stay ahead of that game.
I wrote to all Committee members last night, and there are copies of the letter in the room, with some of the answers to the questions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston about vape vending machines. I will look at whether there is more that I can say about how we will stay ahead of novel ideas such as vaping solutions and products, but I think all those questions have been answered in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Repeal of offence of purchasing tobacco products by under 18s
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 39 repeals the offence for someone under the age of 18 in Scotland to buy or attempt to buy a tobacco product or cigarette paper. Clause 40 repeals the power for constables in Scotland to confiscate a tobacco product or cigarette paper from someone in a public place who they suspect is under 18. These provisions were originally made in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010.
The clauses ensure that legislation in Scotland is in line with that in England and Wales and mean that it will no longer be an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy these products, and that police officers will no longer have the power to confiscate these products. With the change to age of sale, it was no longer considered necessary to retain these provisions.
This change will ensure that no one is criminalised for their addiction to nicotine. The Bill also repeals the equivalent powers on confiscation for England and Wales in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so we are doing the same for Scotland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I turn to part 2 of the Bill and some of the clauses that apply specifically to Scotland. As the Minister mentioned, Scotland has a proud history of leading on many tobacco control methods, including beating the rest of the UK in introducing regulations to prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces in 2005. That was the crowning achievement of a proud public health legacy left by the last Labour Governments in Westminster and in Holyrood. I am pleased to see the constructive attitude taken by the Scottish Government to the Bill to avoid any unnecessary regulatory divergence and to offer more certainty for business and consistency for consumers.
Clause 39, as the Minister has said, relates to the repeal of section 5 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which made it an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers. As I mentioned in the first sitting, the correct approach is to focus the enforcement of the law on the retailer, not the purchaser. Established businesses should be expected to take a greater degree of responsibility than children, and the law should reflect that. It should be our priority to help children addicted to nicotine, rather than penalise them.
Moreover, I take the Minister’s point that this change will make the law easier to interpret and enforce. Where possible, we do not want to diffuse responsibilities between retailers and customers, or indeed the enforcement authorities that attend to them. I am satisfied that if we have strong and consistent enforcement of the responsibility of retailers to implement age of sale law, that would achieve the same outcomes that the 2010 Act intended.
Kirsten Oswald
As we have heard, part 2 of the Bill relates specifically to Scotland and clauses 39 and 40 repeal particular offences. Clause 39 repeals an offence unique to Scotland—the purchasing of tobacco products by under-18s. That was introduced in 2010 and has been criticised for some time because of the unnecessary criminalisation of young people with a nicotine addiction. The change has been requested by the Scottish Government. Clause 40 repeals the power of the police to confiscate tobacco products from people who they suspect are under 18. Again, the power is unique to Scotland and it is seen as difficult to use. I therefore welcome these clauses as they stand.
It is correct to say that Scotland has been a world leader on a range of tobacco control measures, and there has been a steady reduction in the proportion of people smoking, but we know that far too many lives are still damaged and far too many people are still killed by tobacco. Obviously, we are aware of the huge burden on the NHS and social care services, and we know about the significant health inequalities that underlie much of that. Clauses 39 and 40 are sensible because they allow operations on the ground in Scotland to move forward in a more unified and logical manner. We welcome the new age regime and the greater power for Scottish Ministers to tackle youth smoking and vaping.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Alignment of definitions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause amends definitions in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 for tobacco products and nicotine vapour products to align them with the definitions in the Bill. The clause amends the definition of “tobacco product” in Scottish legislation to align it with the definition in the Bill. All tobacco products are harmful to health, so this definition will ensure that any future, novel tobacco products are captured by the legislation. The clause also amends Scotland’s definition of a nicotine vapour product to state that “‘vapour’ includes aerosol”, so that the definition more closely aligns with that of “vape” in the Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for that explanation. We support the clause, which broadens the definition of “tobacco product” in Scottish legislation and seeks to align that definition with legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom, and clarifies that the definition of nicotine vapour products specifically includes aerosols.
Above all, we support the principle that there should be clear and consistent definitions of the products that we seek to capture in regulations under the Bill across all four nations of the United Kingdom. I will take this opportunity to mention my query about the definitions that we use to capture tobacco-related products and accessories, particularly products used to augment the flavour of tobacco products, but we are happy to support the clause.
Kirsten Oswald
I reiterate the comments about the importance of setting out the definitions here so that there is clarity on the products where that is needed, including on new products that arrive in the market. I support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The clause confers a power on Scottish Ministers to make provision that is consequential on part 2 of the Bill. Regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation passed before the Bill or later in the same Session of Parliament as the Bill, as well as any Act of the Scottish Parliament passed before the Bill. Regulations may amend primary legislation as well as secondary legislation.
Although every effort has been made to identify and make provision for any required amendments to primary legislation, the Bill brings together legislation that has been made over the last century, so there is a small likelihood that further consequential amendments may be required to enable the Bill to function effectively. It is therefore appropriate that Scottish Ministers have the power to make such changes to devolved legislation via secondary legislation. Any regulations amending primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
We are happy to support this clause, which gives Scottish Ministers powers to make consequential amendments to this part of the Bill. Scotland has a proud history of leading the way on tobacco control and putting public health before corporate profit. It brought in the indoor smoking ban before the UK-wide one was introduced nearly 20 years ago. This week, we marked 25 years of the Scottish Parliament—a proud legacy of the previous Labour Government—and the principle of pushing power closer to communities so that Scottish solutions can be found to Scottish problems remains as strong as ever.
Kirsten Oswald
The clause very much reflects the constructive work underlying many clauses in the Bill. It includes several measures that the Scottish Government pushed for, and gives proper differentiated treatment to the separate Governments across the United Kingdom.
Clause 47 gives Scottish Ministers the broad power by regulations to make provision consequential on part 2 of the Bill—the bit that directly relates to Scotland. That is important, because this issue causes difficulties across the whole UK. If the Bill is passed, the Scottish Government will consider how best to use these powers, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, to benefit public health, and will look to avoid any unnecessary regulatory divergence. That will be helpful for those who seek to prevent harms. The Scottish Government were the first Government to commit to taking action on single-use vapes, and have now launched a legislative consent memorandum in the Scottish Parliament recommending that the Parliament give its consent to the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I put on the record my thanks to Scottish Ministers for their collaborative approach to bringing together the Bill. I am extremely grateful to them for ensuring that it is a UK-wide piece of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Power to restrict nicotine products offence to sale by retail
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause will allow the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make regulations to define “sale” in section 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 to mean sale by retail. If the power is used, only sales from a retailer to a customer will be caught by the vape age of sale offence, and business-to-business sales—for example, sales between a wholesaler and a retailer—will not be included. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s explanation of the clause, which we are happy to support. As she said, it aligns the definition of the sale of nicotine products with the definitions we discussed when we debated clause 34. The caveated phrase “sale by retail” means that business-to-business sales need not be impacted by restrictions on age of sale.
The Minister may have touched on this, but I would be grateful if she can explain why Northern Ireland is only being given powers to close loopholes on the free distribution of nicotine products and the sale of non-nicotine vapes, while the Bill will immediately close those loopholes for England and Wales. I note that a study from last year found that half of under-18s in Belfast who attempt to purchase vapes in shops are successful. As I have explained, such loopholes and regulations undermine an understanding of the law and weaken enforcement by trading standards bodies, which cannot use the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s notification publication as a definitive guide to which products are legal. Has the Minister received a commitment from Stormont on introducing such regulations? If so, what is the timeline for doing so?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I can explore that further, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the Stormont Assembly was re-established very late on—in fact, after First Reading if I recall rightly, or at least the decision for the Bill to be UK-wide came after First Reading. At speed, the Bill was amended to incorporate Northern Ireland, and there may well be further amendments relating to Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and with your leave, Sir Gary, I will write to her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Free distribution of vapes and nicotine products
Amendment made: 25, in clause 53, page 26, line 32, leave out from “liable” to end of line 37 and insert
“on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”—(Dame Andrea Leadsom.)
This amendment changes the mode of trial and maximum penalty for an offence of free distribution of nicotine products or non-nicotine vaping products in Northern Ireland. It provides for the mode of trial to be summary only and for the maximum penalty to be a level 5 fine.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Consequential amendments to do with sections 51 to 54
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 55 refers to schedule 5, which provides consequential amendments to clauses 51 to 54 relating to Northern Ireland. Schedule 5 amends two pieces of Northern Irish legislation—the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Making amendments to existing legislation is required to enable the measures in clauses 51 to 54 to function as intended, and to ensure that the existing legislative regime works effectively. I commend clause 55 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for setting that out. As we have discussed the effect of these amendments, I do not want to dwell on them. For the most part, they align legislation in Northern Ireland to capture tobacco products, nicotine products and vapes in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, including age of sale restrictions and the penalties for retailers who break those laws. It also specifically allows non-nicotine vapes to be captured by the same regulatory regime as nicotine vapes in the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which we support.
As the Minister did not accept the amendment that I tabled in a recent sitting, I would like to draw her attention to some of the sections that schedule 5 amends. Particularly, section 12 on fixed penalty notices in the 2014 Act has allowed Ministers to introduce fixed penalty notices of £250 for breach of age of sale. In Scotland, that amount is set at £200. As we have discussed, the proposed amount in the Bill is £100 for England and Wales. Has the Minister given any more thought to that issue?
Likewise, the 2014 Act introduced a duty on councils to share information about fixed penalty notices, convictions and restricted premises and sales orders that had been given by officers in their local authority area. No similar duty has been introduced in the Bill, which touches on points I have made previously about the need for joined-up government to stop repeat offenders slipping through the net. In discussions with the devolved nations about the Bill, what efforts has the Minister made to learn from existing tobacco control legislation? Was it a conscious decision to set the fixed penalty notice regime at such a significantly lower level than in Northern Ireland and Scotland? Once again, I am keen to get a clearer sense of her thinking, although we of course welcome the inclusion of clause 5 and schedule 5 in the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
All I will say is that we discussed this matter comprehensively last week and I am sure we will discuss it again.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 57 confers a power on the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make provisions that are consequential on part 3 of the Bill. Such regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any legislation passed before or later in the same session of Parliament as this Bill. Regulations may amend primary legislation as well as secondary legislation.
Although every effort has been made to identify and make provision for any required amendments to primary legislation, the Bill brings together legislation that has been made over the last century, so there is a small likelihood that further consequential amendments may be required to enable the legislation to function effectively. It is therefore appropriate that the Government have the power to make such changes via secondary legislation. Any regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, in line with guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
We are happy to support the clause to give Ministers in Northern Ireland the power to make amendments consequential on this part of the legislation, just as we supported clause 47 for Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Tobacco retail packaging
Preet Kaur Gill
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 58, page 30, line 5, leave out “may” and insert
“must, within six months of the passage of this Act,”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 58, page 30, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must include—
(a) a requirement for information to be provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product stating that smoking does not reduce stress and anxiety;
(b) the specific wording of the statement to be displayed on the packaging or otherwise supplied with a product; and
(c) requirements related to the size or appearance of the statement to be displayed on the packaging or otherwise supplied with a product.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 60, page 32, line 5, at end insert—
“(f) the markings on cigarette papers (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos)”.
This amendment enables the introduction of health warnings on cigarette papers.
Clause 60 stand part.
Amendment 23, in clause 69, page 37, line 19, at end insert—
“‘cigarette papers’ includes anything intended to be used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked;”.
These amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
New clause 4—Mandatory health information inside tobacco packs—
“The Secretary of State must consult on draft regulations to require tobacco manufacturers to include within tobacco and cigarette packs an insert setting out—
(a) warnings about the dangers of tobacco to a person’s health and wellbeing, and
(b) information about sources of advice and support on stopping smoking.”
This new clause commits the government to consult on draft regulations to require mandatory pack inserts containing health information such as quit messaging.
New clause 5—Mandatory health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers—
“The Secretary of State must consult on draft regulations to require tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarette sticks and cigarette rolling papers.”
This new clause commits the government to consult on regulations to require the placing of specified health warnings on cigarettes and rolling papers by tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 12—Consultation on mandating quit information messages inside tobacco packs: publication—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, publish a response to the consultation on mandating quit information messages inside tobacco packs.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a response to the consultation led by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities on mandating quit information messages inside tobacco packs.
Preet Kaur Gill
Let me touch briefly on new clause 12, on the consultation on pack inserts. The Government committed to consulting on regulations a year ago, and the Department for Health and Social Care consultation closed on 10 October 2023. However, a response has still not been published, despite Government principles stating that it should have been published within 12 weeks, or that an explanation should have been provided for why that was not possible. Will the Minister please promise that the response will be published soon, so that we can get on with putting the regulations in place with the full information to hand?
Our new clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish the response within three months, which is more than generous, given the delays to date. That would then pave the way for the real prize—the real purpose of clause 58—which is to allow us to introduce stronger and more detailed quit messaging in tobacco products, so that more smokers kick the habit for good.
On average, smokers take 30 attempts to quit smoking before quitting for good, so it is essential to do everything possible to motivate them to attempt to quit. There is sufficient evidence from Canada, where tobacco pack inserts have been mandatory since 2000, that they can help to motivate smokers to quit. That is why we tabled amendments 18 and 19, which I would like to be considered together. They would require the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to require tobacco companies to include information in their products to dispel the myth that smoking relieves stress and anxiety.
I am passionate about this issue. In my maiden speech, I vowed to campaign to improve the mental health of the young people of this nation and now, in Mental Health Awareness Week, we have the opportunity through this Bill to do something that could make a real difference. In the evidence sessions the other week, we heard a passionate and moving testimony from Mark Rowland of the Mental Health Foundation that convinced me all the more that taking this action is the right thing to do.
Smoking doubles the risk of people developing depression, more than one in two people with severe mental health conditions smoke, and the life expectancy of those with mental health conditions is reduced. The issues that our young people and children face with their mental health are well known to everyone present, and smoking simply exacerbates those issues. Yet a 2022 survey found that over 40% of smokers in England cite stress relief as a reason why they smoke. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the myth that smoking reduces stress and anxiety persists, in all its utter perversity.
This has not happened by accident. It is a myth that has been manufactured and spread by the tobacco industry. Powerful companies have commissioned research and fed it into the public domain, to create the impression that smoking has medicinal properties. It does not. We see all the time, in any gritty noir TV show or film, the stressed protagonist busily drawing on a cigarette before they face their demons. We can see how, if we do not confront such imagery head-on, it serves only to reinforce the myth.
The amendments seek to send a clear message that smoking does not relieve stress or anxiety and actually exacerbates them. The feeling that someone gets when they take a drag on a cigarette is not a real health benefit; it is a temporary relief from the withdrawal from the addiction that makes them feel worse in the first place. That is what is so insidious about this whole dynamic: it preys on the anxious, the depressed and the vulnerable.
As I have said, more than one in two people with severe mental health conditions smoke, yet whereas almost everyone understands the link between smoking and cancer, the link with mental health conditions is much less well understood. As the CEO of the Mental Health Foundation told us, it was not until 2008 that smoke-free policies were made mandatory in mental health settings. A third of mental health professionals had reservations about those policies, not understanding the link, but the evidence we have now is strong: people with mental health problems are likely to feel much calmer and more positive and to have a better quality of life after giving up smoking. Evidence suggests that stopping smoking is as effective as taking antidepressants.
As the Committee will be aware, we already face a mental health crisis in this country, with a quarter of our health burden being a result of mental ill health. We should take any opportunity to reduce that burden, so I urge the Minister to accept the amendment so that we can rid society of this insidious myth for good.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Gary. I rise to speak in favour of the measures that I and other colleagues on the Committee have proposed.
Amendments 22 and 23 are essential consequential amendments that seek to introduce markings on cigarette papers and to define cigarette papers so that that is clear in the law. I am interested in the Minister’s view of our proposals. We seek to make sure that health warnings can be put literally on to the cigarettes and other tobacco products themselves, rather than just on the packs.
New clause 5 is intended to look at mandatory health warnings on cigarettes and rolling papers, and at the regulations that would need to be rolled out and consulted on among tobacco manufacturers. It would enable us to have a consultation, rather than to change the law immediately.
Our proposal is not new. It was first proposed by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am the chairman, in our 2021 report and recommendations to the Government. Importantly, our recommendation was endorsed by Javed Khan in his 2022 report. It is one recommendation that has not, thus far, been included in the Bill.
This is not even a novel policy. My noble Friend in the other place, Lord Young of Cookham, first proposed cigarette warnings when he was a Health Minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Government—a great Government at the time. His statement at the 1979 world conference on tobacco and health bears repeating. He said:
“The solution to many of today’s medical problems will not be found in the research laboratories of our hospitals, but in our Parliaments. For the prospective patient, the answer may not be cure by incision at the operating table, but prevention by decision at the Cabinet table…Historically, a nation would look to its doctors for better health. Now they should look to their Members of Parliament.”
Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director of NHS England, echoed Lord Young’s comments when he said to this Committee that the legislation we are considering is “possibly the most important” piece of legislation since Parliament passed the National Health Service Act 1946, which led to the formation of the NHS on 5 July 1948. In his view, the legislation that we are considering is
“one of the most important—possibly the most important—pieces of legislation since the passage of that Act.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 89, Q129.]
This year, my noble Friend in the other House, Lord Young, will have been in Parliament for 50 years—50 years in which he has fought long and hard to end the blight that smoking leaves on society. It would be a just tribute to his efforts if the Government committed to implement this policy, which he first called for more than 30 years ago. Tobacco manufacturers already print on to cigarette papers, so it would be cheap and easy to implement.
New clause 4, on mandatory health information inside tobacco products, would commit the Government to consult again on draft regulations to require mandatory pack inserts containing health information such as quit messaging. Pack inserts were first proposed by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health in our 2021 report, that recommendation was also endorsed by Javed Khan in 2022, and the Government consulted on their introduction in a consultation that closed on 10 October 2023.
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that the Government’s own guidelines state:
“Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion”,
which is defined as
“within 12 weeks of the consultation”,
or they should
“provide an explanation why this is not possible.”
It is disappointing that, more than seven months after the consultation closed, the Government have still not published their response or given a reason for not doing so.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I thank hon. Members for this debate and am grateful for the proposed amendments. I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendments, particularly those on pack inserts. They would provide an opportunity to introduce positive messages and provide more advice and support directly to smokers to help them to quit. The international evidence base shows that pack inserts can be effective in helping people to quit. For example, an evaluation in Canada showed that 26% to 31% of smokers had read the inserts at least once in the past month, which increased the likelihood of their making a quit attempt.
Pack inserts would complement our existing packaging measures, which include health warnings on packs and pointers to NHS advice on the benefits of quitting. We know that quitting smoking is associated with reduced depression, anxiety and stress, and that it improves mood and quality of life compared with continuing to smoke. Although it is a common belief that smoking can help one to relax, the evidence shows that it actually increases anxiety and tension, as it interferes with chemicals in the brain. Studies show that there are numerous mental health benefits from quitting smoking; quitting can in fact be as effective as antidepressants.
However, I point out to hon. Members that we already possess the regulation-making powers to go further on tobacco packaging. The Government’s eight-week consultation on pack inserts ran from August to October ’23. It explored whether we could help more smokers to quit by providing positive quit-themed information in tobacco packaging, alongside the existing information on harms. Proposed themes included the physical and mental health benefits of quitting, the financial benefits and advice on stop-smoking aids. The work to respond to the consultation is under way, and we are committed to responding in this parliamentary Session. That response will include details on the specific themes that may be included, such as anxiety and stress.
Amendments 22 and 23 and new clause 5 centre on the introduction of health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers, and would require the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on that. As with new clause 4 and amendments 18 and 19, I am sympathetic towards the aims of the amendments, which would encourage smokers to quit and provide them with information on the dangers of tobacco. However, we already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging and product design, which emphasise the health harms of tobacco. They include the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packs. A recent post-implementation review stated that those measures remain effective in helping smokers to quit, and in deterring children from taking up the habit. We will continue to monitor the evidence as to whether further health-harm messages are required, and take further action if necessary. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston to withdraw her amendments.
Clauses 58 and 60 are both in part 4 of the Bill, which relates to the product requirements for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products, including in respect of packaging and flavours. The powers in part 4 are UK-wide. Clauses 58 and 60 replace existing powers set out in the Children and Families Act 2014: clause 58 replaces powers to make provision about the retail packaging of tobacco products and clause 60 replaces powers to make regulations about other tobacco product requirements, such as the markings on them and the use of branding and logos.
The Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 introduced requirements using the relevant powers, and the Bill will not change the effect of those regulations, which will remain in force. Examples include the regulations covering the minimum pack requirement of 20 cigarettes, the requirements about the colour and shape of cigarette packaging, and the permitted colours forming part of a cigarette. The packaging requirements were originally introduced because there is evidence that standardised packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products and decreases or delays the uptake of smoking by young people. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I will press amendment 19 to a vote, but not amendment 18. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 19, in clause 58, page 30, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must include—
(a) a requirement for information to be provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product stating that smoking does not reduce stress and anxiety;
(b) the specific wording of the statement to be displayed on the packaging or otherwise supplied with a product; and
(c) requirements related to the size or appearance of the statement to be displayed on the packaging or otherwise supplied with a product.”—(Preet Kaur Gill.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As per the previous clause, clause 59 replaces an existing power in the 2014 Act to make regulations about the flavour of tobacco products. Flavours, particularly menthol, have been shown to make it easier for young people to start smoking and therefore more likely to become addicted. That is because menthol flavouring makes the smoke less harsh and therefore easier to inhale. The flavour masks the harms of tobacco. All tobacco is harmful to health, and it is right that the Government have the powers to protect the population from those harms, and especially from tobacco products that may be more attractive to children. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
As we discussed in the previous debate, tobacco is an insidious industry that causes untold harm to its customers, privatising the profits while socialising the costs. I know that there are many sceptics out there who suggest that the Bill’s central purpose—introducing a progressive rise in the age of sale—is not necessary because the number of people who smoke is steadily declining, especially among young people, but that makes the fundamental error of assuming that those gains are a natural force, not the hard-won result of concerted Government action over many years to reduce the appeal of tobacco.
Among the other measures, restrictions on the flavours of tobacco products that can be legally sold are certainly one, and we do not take it for granted that the powers are restated on the face of the Bill. However, as I have mentioned in previous debates, the issue of flavours has proven difficult to get right. Part of the issue is accessories such as drops, flavour cards and filter balls marketed to be added to tobacco products to give them flavours that they would otherwise not be allowed to have. I ask the Minister again whether she accepts the case that I have made for an amendment to the clause to include reference to accessories to tobacco products to capture such products.
There is also the issue of capturing flavours in legislation. As I mentioned earlier, a survey of smokers in Britain conducted in October 2020, five months after the menthol ban was introduced, and again in March 2023, found that the ban had had a negligible impact. The proportion of adult smokers reporting that they used menthol-flavoured cigarettes in 2023 compared with 2020 dropped by only 2%. Some in the sector went as far as labelling the ban worthless, as tobacco companies continue to sell hundreds of millions of cigarettes laced with menthol. Japan Tobacco International put a range of replacement products advertised as “menthol reimagined” on the market the day the ban came into effect. That was backed up by a handbook for retailers on how to promoted the range, called “Making a Mint”. Smokers were quoted as saying that the products “tasted fully menthol”. A year later, Nielsen data showed that JTI had sold more than 100 million packs of it menthol reimagined brands, amounting to total sales topping £1 billion.
In 2020, Imperial Tobacco made formal complaints about the behaviour of JTI, claiming it was breaching the legislation, before following suit by launching its own green filter range. Does the Minister think that it is time to get it right, and that we should scrap the focus on so-called characterising flavours, which are subjective and difficult to regulate, and extend a ban to all tobacco flavours?
I note that the Government were meant to review the menthol ban legislation nearly three years ago, yet we have not heard anything since then. The whole point of the ban was to target flavours that make it easier for young people to start smoking and increase the likelihood that they will become addicted. I would be most grateful if the Minister shared her thinking on the issue.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will share my thinking, because this is important. We are all on the same side where the Bill is concerned, and I say very genuinely to hon. Members that there is an important debate about flavours. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston says that we should scrap menthol, but the problem is that if we scrap menthol it will be reimagined as “raspberry mint crush”—it will still be menthol, but simply reimagined. That is the perfect example of how people can get round the legislation by calling it something else—something even more appealing to children.
The idea of tackling the issue in secondary legislation is to ensure that we stay ahead of the industry at all times. I understand the desire to put things in the Bill, but I hope all hon. Members recognise that there are also weaknesses associated with something which, if we are to change it, requires primary legislation to do so.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Retail packaging of vaping products and nicotine products
Kirsten Oswald
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 61, page 33, line 19, at end insert—
“(l) the use of fonts in any alphanumeric markings on the packaging.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about the font used on the retail packaging of vaping products and nicotine products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 61, page 33, line 37, at end insert—
“(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 40, in clause 62, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
Amendment 21, in clause 63, page 34, line 36, leave out from “products” in the second place it occurs to the end of line 37 and insert—
“(g) any other features of vaping products or nicotine products.”
This amendment allows for changes to other features of vaping or nicotine products as set out in the TRPR 2016 section 36 which do not distinguish between different brands such as capacity of refills, cartridges or pods, and nicotine delivery.
Amendment 41, in clause 63, page 35, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
Clause 63 stand part.
Amendment 42, in clause 71, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
Amendment 43, in clause 72, page 39, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
Amendment 44, in clause 73, page 40, line 16, at end insert—
“(5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether there are any persons who appear to be representative of the interests of those likely to have an interest in the regulations, and
(b) if there are, to take reasonable steps to consult them.”
New clause 10—Power to change product requirements of vaping and nicotine products—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend regulations 36 and 38 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to amend sections 36 and 38 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 related to general product requirements of vaping and nicotine products.
Kirsten Oswald
I am happy to speak to amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as a signatory to the amendment. The amendment seeks to deal with the use of fonts in any alphanumeric markings on the packaging. That would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about the font used on the retail packaging of vaping and nicotine products.
The logic behind the amendment is that it would allow the Secretary of State to preclude vape companies from getting round the ugly packaging requirements by choosing an attractive or distinguishable font. The amendment provides helpful clarity. I appreciate that there is probably an ability to make provision on fonts in the Bill, but I am not sure that “probably” is good enough. The Committee has spoken about the need to try and stay ahead of the game when it comes to the companies, which are fleet of foot when trying to find ways of stopping us preventing the harms we are seeking to prevent.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I want to speak to my amendments to clauses 61, 62 and 63, which are all in a similar vein. My amendments would bind any Government to considering whether there are people who have an interest in future regulations on vaping packaging, and if so, to consult them. The point of the amendments is consultation, which would include all stakeholders with an interest—not just the industry but those who use vaping products to help them stop smoking. While the Government and the Minister have committed to that for the first round of regulation, there is no requirement for a future Government to do so.
My amendments 62 and 63 would require the Government to consult before implementing regulations. I will not press them to a Division, but I hope that the Minister, as she said she would last week, will consider and take away everything that is being suggested. I make the plea on behalf of the industry. The vaping industry takes very seriously the notion that children should not be allowed to vape, and that every precaution should be taken to ensure that children do not vape and that vapes are used as a tool to stop smoking. I say that as a member of the responsible vaping all-party group. I have followed this for many years, and am an advocate of vaping as a tool to stop smoking. I repeat that I will not press my amendments to a vote.
Bob Blackman
I rise to speak to amendment 21, which I tabled with other hon. Members. It seeks to regulate vaping product standards and is vital to the Bill. The amendment allows for changes to other features of vaping or nicotine products, as set out in regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which at the moment do not distinguish between the differences among brands, such as capacity of refills, cartridges or pods, and nicotine delivery. My amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has powers to revise generic product requirements, as set out in regulation 36 of the TRPR.
Importantly, my measure would be permissive, rather than a requirement. The wording of clause 63(1)(f) as drafted limits revision to features that “distinguish between different brands”, and could potentially exclude revision to generic standards such as capacity of refills, cartridges and pods, and nicotine delivery. The standards in the TRPR were developed for e-cigarettes only in the EU tobacco products directive back in 2013. Vaping and nicotine products have evolved considerably over the past 11 years, and they will continue to evolve, so it is vital that the Secretary of State has powers to revise the standards.
The change I propose is not to the intent of the clause; it is merely a clarification to ensure that there is no risk of limiting the powers of the Secretary of State only to characteristics that are brand-specific. Will the Minister, in her response, either accept amendment 21 or to come back with further consequential amendments, which will ensure that the Secretary of State has the powers that we know will be needed, because the industry will evolve and change its products. The industry will look at the Bill when it becomes an Act, and the risk is that we will have to come back and look at this again.
Preet Kaur Gill
New clause 10 would provide powers to the Secretary of State to amend regulations 36 and 38 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. As has been remarked several times in our debates, one of the biggest risks to the success of this legislation in achieving a smoke-free future and tackling youth vaping is that, if the Bill is not tightly worded, vexatious tobacco companies could find loopholes and workarounds. We have been discussing those with the failure of the flavours ban; the same goes for vapes.
To reiterate, Labour is ready to come down like a ton of bricks on any company that would attempt to profit at the expense of our children’s health. We know that the business model of tobacco and, let us face it, of vape companies is addiction. That is not to say that vapes are anywhere near as destructive and harmful as tobacco, but they are not good for us, and if we do not smoke, we should not vape.
The clauses on product requirements provide powers to the Secretary of State to create regulations for the retail packaging of vaping and nicotine products, as well as other product requirements, and they are, at face value, welcome. For a long time, we have been saying that we need to come down hard on those companies blatantly marketing nicotine addiction to children. I have seen egregious examples of that. It is not just the bright colours and pick-and-mix flavours. We heard in evidence from the NASUWT about vapes designed to look like USB sticks or highlighter pens so that they can easily fool teachers in schools. E-liquids available on the market called Candy King look like sherbet dip. I was sent one example from trading standards that really turned my stomach: a vape it seized that was shaped like a sippy cup. That is why we have long been calling for the standardisation of vape product requirements, to remove the risk that products can be designed to appeal to children. At a minimum, the regulations should allow for bright colouring and child-appealing imagery and product names to be removed.
The one thing that companies have shown time and again, however, is that they are agile. They are able to innovate faster than Government have been able to keep up, often to harmful ends. My concern with clauses 61 and 63, which new clause 10 seeks to address, is that the powers provided are limited. In clause 61(3), the wording specifies that the regulations that the Secretary of State may create may include provisions about
“features of the packaging of vaping products or nicotine products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of the product”.
The same phrase is used about other product requirements in clause 63(1)(f). My concern is that such a caveat could exclude revision to generic standards, such as capacity of refills, cartridges or pods, and nicotine delivery.
As I mentioned, we have heard how part of the issue with the use of vapes is their tactility. They are discreet and can easily be hidden, and all evidence I have received about the concurrent disposable proposals that are being worked on by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that there will be little change. The leading producers will be able to meet those new requirements with a few minor adjustments to their products, such as attaching a USB port. I appreciate from his amendment that the hon. Member for Harrow East has similar concerns. I therefore think we should include provisions for other requirements to be introduced for these products that would have an impact on their use by children, while maintaining their viability as an attractive stop-smoking aid.
I include in new clause 10 powers to amend regulation 38 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, as well as regulation 36 on general product requirements, as they cover a range of miscellaneous presentational issues such as misleading or harmful claims that the product has certain health or lifestyle benefits, or attempts to mimic other items. I note, for example, that the current regulations specify that vapes cannot look like a food or cosmetic product, but that does not include looking like stationery, which was an issue identified in evidence by the NASUWT. Conversely, those regulations specify that a product cannot make any environmental claims where it may, in fact, be beneficial to do so to encourage greater use of reusable features once the regulations on single-use vapes come into effect.
Simply put, the purpose of the new clause is to give greater flexibility to Ministers to design regulations that can respond to problems as they arise and so that those powers are not limited to the aesthetic features of packaging or the products themselves, but can prohibit product claims and other characteristics that may appeal to children. My concern is that the legislation as drafted would not achieve that, particularly as we are dealing with regulations that were designed for vapes but which, through the Bill, could be extended to a host of as yet less understood nicotine products. We therefore need that flexibility.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion before the Committee. We all agree that with vaping, product packaging is an integral part of what we are seeking to avoid for children. As I have said before, I am on the warpath where promoting vaping to children is concerned. I want to assure all hon. Members that the reason I resist the amendments is that we already have the powers in the Bill and I want to explain how that is so.
I am sympathetic to the concerns raised. Making sure we have the right powers to tackle the appeal of vapes to children is crucial and integral. It is totally clear that the design of many vapes is targeted at children, with brightly coloured features and eye-catching designs. There is no way we will stand by while industry knowingly, deliberately and maliciously encourages children to take up addiction and use products that have been designed for adults to quit smoking. The chief medical officer has written:
“Companies trying to addict children for profit are behaving in a shameful way. Yet it is undoubtedly happening.”
That is why we are bringing forward powers to regulate product requirements as part of the Bill.
I am sympathetic to the broadening of the scope of our regulations so they cover all product and packaging features and requirements, as in amendment 21. However, the Bill already contains regulation-making powers to make provision, in relation to vaping and nicotine products, for things such as appearance, size and packaging, as well as the substances that may be included and the amount of any substance within the e-liquid, including nicotine.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
May I seek clarity that the font would be included in the category of appearance, because I have certainly seen some vaping products advertising lemon flavour and the font appears in a very stylised way that I would suggest is aimed at young children?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Absolutely. The Bill does allow us great flexibility in these areas and, to clarify, this does include amending fonts and alphanumeric markings, which is the intent of amendment 26. The Bill already provides for that, just to be absolutely clear. That is why we do not need to take additional powers to amend aspects of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, as suggested in new clause 10. The Bill already captures all the features that we may need to regulate, and allows that regulation to extend to non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products.
Amendments 39 to 43 effectively place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on secondary regulations. As stated in the House on Second Reading, I want to make clear my commitment to undertaking, on the vape regulations, comprehensive consultation regarding, but not limited to, packaging, product requirements, flavours and changes to the MHRA vape notification scheme. I want to make it clear to the Committee that, of course, prior to those regulations we will engage in comprehensive stakeholder discussions. For that reason, it is not necessary for a legal duty of consultation to be placed on the Secretary of State in relation to the regulation-making powers. That would result in a loss of flexibility and speed. There may be occasions when we will need to make minor changes, or quickly adapt to emerging products. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, consultation is the right and proper thing to do, but we do not need this to be stipulated in the Bill. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Clauses 61 and 63 provide the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care with a power to make regulations about the retail packaging of vaping products and nicotine products and to introduce other product requirements for vaping and other nicotine products. Vaping is never recommended for children. It risks addiction and unknown long-term health impacts while their lungs and brains are still developing. We must not replace one generation addicted to nicotine with another. We know that giving up nicotine is difficult because the body has to get used to functioning without it. Withdrawal symptoms include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms, so I say to those children currently thinking, “A vape is going to calm me for my GCSEs” that it is going to do the exact opposite. We need to get that message across to children.
Despite the clear health advice, there has been a significant and alarming rise in the number of children vaping. 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 incredibly alarming and it is unacceptable. We heard, in our vaping call for evidence, that children are attracted to vapes by the brightly coloured packaging and the use of child-friendly images such as cartoons. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston gave very good examples. Research on vape packaging has shown that reduced brand imagery can decrease the appeal to young people who have not previously smoked or vaped, and can do so without reducing the appeal of vapes to adult smokers trying to quit. To protect children from potential health harms of vaping, we must reduce the ways in which vaping appeals to them, and do so without impacting on adult smokers.
Mary Glindon
I am not sure whether this is the appropriate moment for this question, but the Minister is making such a good case for making vaping unattractive and stopping vapes being available to children that I want to ask whether she has considered the idea of the licensing scheme that the vaping industry has put together—I believe that it has been presented to the Government before, although perhaps not to the Minister, in her position—which it believes will control who sells and supplies vapes and provide a vast sum to support greater enforcement. I just ask that, incidentally, as a question that the Minister may be able to answer.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to give my personal opinion on licensing. It is a licence for the vaping industry to get rid of the competition, make loads more money and focus even more on addicting children to vapes. It is the most cynical of all the cynical proposals I have seen. I am literally in no way in support of a licensing regime. I see lots of nods around the room; I hope that my personal view is clear and am glad that it seems to be shared by a number of hon. Members.
Clause 61 provides the Government with regulation-making powers, which could be used to limit the appeal of vapes and other nicotine products to children. This could include, for example, regulating the types of imagery that can be used on packaging, as well as the size, shape and appearance of the packaging—subject, of course, to further consultation.
Clause 63 allows us to introduce requirements that could, for example, limit the types of imagery used on the product itself, as well as its size and shape. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause provides the Department of Health and Social Care Secretary of State with a power to regulate the contents and flavour of vaping products and nicotine products.
Vaping is never recommended for children and, as we have just discussed, risks addiction and long-term health impacts. We know that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described. For example, the most frequently used vape flavouring for children is fruit flavour, with 60% of children who currently vape using them; and 17% of children who vape choose sweet flavours such as chocolate or candy.
We also recognise the importance of vape flavours to adult smokers who are looking to quit smoking. It is, therefore, important that we carefully consider the scope and impact of restrictions so that we reduce the appeal of vaping to children, while avoiding any unintended consequences on adult smoking rates. We have committed to consult on any regulatory measures regarding flavours. I can tell the Committee that I had an interesting roundtable with members of the public health sector, who were themselves entirely divided on whether reducing vapes significantly would encourage adult smokers to carry on smoking, rather than turning to vaping. It is a very live issue, at which we need to look carefully.
To achieve these aims, the clause will enable the Government to make regulations in future to regulate the substances and the amount of any given substance that may be used in vaping or other nicotine products, as well as the flavours of those products. That also means that regulations are future-proofed in the event of new nicotine products coming to market; we will be able to regulate any new nicotine product, and protect our children from future addiction and health harms. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the clause. As I have already outlined, we are very concerned about the explosion in under-age vaping in recent years, with youth use trebling in the past two years alone. I think I speak for everyone in the Labour party when I say that we have been very concerned about some of the products appearing on our local shop shelves, which are obviously marketed to children.
I do not want to lump the whole of the industry in together, but some of these companies are clearly linked to big tobacco and have used big tobacco-style tactics to target youngsters. They see the way things are going with smoking and have sought to addict a new generation through vapes and other products. We therefore support the clause, which will allow us to stop products with flavours mimicking popular sweets or with bizarre names like “unicorn shake” from sucking young people and other vulnerable non-smokers in. I am afraid to say that the Government have been asleep at the wheel on this issue, and there has been a bit of a free-for-all as a result. I was flabbergasted to learn from the MHRA that something like 600,000 different vaping products have gone through the notification process and can legally be sold in the UK now.
All that said, I do appreciate the genuine and legitimate concern from people who have used vapes to help them quit smoking that, in seeking to course correct, the Government could go too far in the other direction and take away the flavours that they enjoy and feel have helped them stay off cigarettes. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside has raised concerns to that effect, and I want to reassure her that we are committed to consulting on this issue before introducing regulations, so that we can get the balance right.
I have mentioned on previous clauses that when it comes to tobacco regulation, some of the restrictions on flavours have been among the least successful of any regulations brought in by successive Governments in recent decades. In the disappointment of the menthol ban is the cautionary tale that implementing these regulations will take thought and care. Similarly, the quagmire that the Food and Drug Administration in the US has sunk into is something we should obviously seek to avoid. I wonder if the Minister could therefore comment on what lessons she has drawn from the US, where the blanket ban on flavours has seen only a few dozen products approved for legal sale in three years, while illegal products remain widely available in stores.
The key issue we need to crack is what the best way is of dealing with flavours—is it descriptors, ingredients or the characterising flavour itself? On the latter point, I have already mentioned the menthol ban. Can the Minister please set out her view on how to proceed, given that the Bill leaves the specifics of how to implement restrictions on flavours quite open, including how the flavour of a product is to be determined. Has she conducted a systematic review of how Governments in other jurisdictions have sought to tackle this? Given our desire to protect the use of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, can she set out how restrictive she thinks regulations on flavours should be? Would she go as far as Canada in banning all fruit flavours, for instance? Given that the powers in the clause may be some of the trickiest to implement, I would be grateful if she could devote time in her response to answering these questions.
Bob Blackman
I rise in support of clause 62, noting the two amendments proposed by a Member not on the Committee that would have removed the power of the Secretary of State to deal with flavours. I consider it vital that the Secretary of State can make regulations about flavours of vaping products and nicotine products. As has been said, this is a much-needed power to help curb youth vaping.
The chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty spoke very strongly when giving evidence to the Committee. He said:
“We are strongly supportive of Ministers in all four nations having the power to regulate flavours…We know that otherwise the vape industry will use this to essentially drive a coach and horses through the aims of the Bill, which is to make products less attractive to children”.––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 74, Q103.]
Indeed, literally overnight Action on Smoking and Health has published data showing that youth vaping has stabilised. That is the good news. The bad news is that 7.6% of 11 to 17-year-olds regularly vape. That is above the pre-pandemic level of 4.4%, so it has almost doubled since then. Young people are being encouraged to become addicted to vaping and will potentially go on to even more harmful products.
Exposure to marketing is also up. Some 55% of young people are exposed to vaping in shops, where vapes are on full display, and nearly a third are exposed to vaping online, so we need to take action. The measures in the Bill, particularly in this clause, will make starting to vape far less attractive to young people. That is why it is essential that it remains part of the Bill. I hope that as the Bill progresses we can resist further proposals that might seek to remove this measure from the Bill.
Kirsten Oswald
The clause is important. We have had discussions here and listened to experts in numerous sessions, which should give us a real opportunity to pause and consider why the measure is necessary. We know the incredible damage that smoking does to far too many lives and the importance of assisting people to stop smoking. Vaping can certainly be an important and helpful part of smoking cessation—that must be acknowledged.
I find it difficult, though, to imagine that many people successfully stop smoking by using a hot pink disposable pocket-money costing vape in “candy floss unicorn” flavour. That is not what those are for nor what they are aimed at. Action to deal with flavourings, as well as names and descriptions and so on, is essential. We are more than able to deal with smoking cessation and the importance of supporting that at the same time as dealing with the harms of vaping. I would be interested if the Minister could tell us about lessons from elsewhere about how that has successfully been done.
It is important to reiterate the significant numbers of youths who vape: 7.6% of 11 to 17-year-olds currently vape. That is not those who have tried vaping. For those who have tried vaping, the numbers are significantly higher and they are absolutely targeted by marketing. Even those numbers—which, as the mother of teenagers, certainly will give me further grey hair—are partly because of the exposure to marketing. We know that wherever we are and whichever shop we go into, we see attractive displays of vapes, and the flavours are a part of those displays. More than half of young people have felt exposed to that kind of marketing in shops, and nearly a third online. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me remind the Committee that people are also exposed to the advertising when they go to watch their favourite sports teams. That is wholly unacceptable and indefensible.
I support the clause, although I think more could be done, but that will come up in our later conversations.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I want to speak briefly in support of the clause. I am frustrated that we would need yet more consultation when there is an awful lot of evidence to support prohibiting the tactics, branding and sweet flavourings. Indeed, that was recommended by the Khan review. I am frustrated that I tabled an amendment to this effect in 2021. If it had been passed instead of being voted down by the Government, fewer children would be addicted to nicotine now.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I share the views expressed here today that we have got to stop the marketing aimed at children in the brutal and cynical way that is happening right now. Hon. Members will appreciate that the limiting of flavours is a tricky thing to achieve. Is it the name of the flavour? Is it the ingredients in the flavour? Is it a combination of the ingredients and the flavours?
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Minister is making a considered point. The Committee has received research data from ASH that highlights how complex the issue is. Although 50% of child vapers preferred fruit flavours, 47% of adult vapers also preferred fruit flavours. We therefore have to consult on and take these issues forward in a very considered way, because we do not want to undermine the harm reduction from helping adults who are trying to stop smoking.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is another factor, of course, which is that a lot of these vape flavours are non-toxic for consumption only, as the chief medical officer has pointed out. As he said to me, “If you drink a glass of water, it’s fine, isn’t it? But if you breathe it in, it’s not quite so fine.” That is a slightly silly example, but the point is that a flavour that might be fine if it was in an ice cream could have a very different impact if it was breathed in—we just do not know. It is therefore important that we consult further. As my hon. Friend and others have said, we must ensure we do not remove the ability of adult smokers to use vapes as a quit aid, but we must stop them being marketed to children.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Power to include provision about enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 64 enables any regulations made under the Bill relating to the packaging, flavours and other requirements of tobacco, vape and nicotine products to include provision about their enforcement. That will enable future regulations to include enforcement provisions similar to the enforcement provisions for current tobacco and vape legislation, which are known to be effective. Those include provisions conferring functions to the relevant enforcement authority—local weights and measures authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, and district councils in Northern Ireland—and provisions for the relevant national authority to take over the enforcement function. The effect of the clause is that future regulations relating to the requirements of tobacco, vape and nicotine products can include provisions about their enforcement and so be successfully implemented and enforced. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Of course, where we create new regulations, we must give powers to the appropriate authorities to enforce them, so we support the clause. I do not want to labour the point, as I have made it previously, but I did not receive all the answers to the questions that I asked, so I will ask them again. How will the £30 million investment in enforcement agencies such as trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and Border Force be split? Is it a one-off investment? If it is, what is the timeframe over which the investment will be delivered? Or will it be an annual uplift to support their work? Can the Minister provide a breakdown of what the investment will be used to fund?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The funding for enforcement agencies will be increased by £30 million a year, to be used by HMRC, Border Force and trading standards, and the breakdown of the funding will be determined on an ongoing basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Power to make provision binding the Crown
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause states that when regulations are made under part 4 of the Bill—on tobacco, vaping and nicotine product requirements—the requirements could be applied to the Crown in the same way as the measures in part 1 of the Bill explicitly apply to the Crown. It is a standard clause that enables any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill to apply to the Crown in the same way as the measures in part 1. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
As with part 1, we have no objections to raise about this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Power to amend other legislation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Preet Kaur Gill
I touched on this in relation to my new clause 10, which was grouped under clause 61. Clearly, a gamut of regulations on the statute book stands to be affected by further regulations that will be introduced under the Bill. It is therefore apposite to provide powers to amend or remove them as they are changed or replaced. We therefore agree to the inclusion of this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Consent to regulations under Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 67 requires that, before the introduction of any regulations setting product requirements for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, the Secretary of State must obtain consent from the devolved Administrations if the regulations include provisions that would be within their devolved competence. This is a standard clause that enables the Bill to function effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for that. We of course agree with this clause to ensure that, wherever appropriate, consensus is sought on any regulations made under this part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Consequential repeal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Preet Kaur Gill
I do not take for granted the enormous legislative tidying-up that this Bill requires, given that there are pieces of tobacco-control legislation extending back nearly 100 years that are affected by some of the new provisions. If I have not done so already, I would just like to pay a brief tribute to the work of the officials who have done the diligent work of helping to draft the Bill, dotting all the i’s and crossing the t’s to make it fit for publication.
I am happy for this clause to be included in the Bill, but there is one element of the legislation being replaced that I want to ask about. The Children and Families Act 2014 includes a clear and generous definition of the term “packaging” in relation to a tobacco product, and, as we have seen, the “retail packaging” part of the legislation has been of particular interest to other members of the Committee. I wonder whether the Minister knows why the Bill, as drafted, provides a definition of retail packaging, but not of packaging. The definition under the 2014 Act clearly includes external packaging, internal packaging, any wrapper of that product, or any other material attached to or included with that product.
Do we not lose something by revoking that definition, particularly if we consider the changes that this Committee has been keen to make to clause 58? For example, where clause 58(3) of this Bill refers to
“any other features of packaging”,
the 2014 Act refers specifically to
“any other features of the retail packaging”.
I do not disagree with the change; I only comment on it, and ask whether defining the term “packaging”, as opposed to “retail packaging”, would be useful.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I would like to take this moment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston has, to say that this has been an incredible piece of work, at pace, by the Bill team. I would like to add my thanks and my gratitude to them for all of their hard work, and for all of the collaboration with all of the devolved Administrations, which has been superb. This Bill has really come forward at pace.
On the hon. Lady’s point about packaging, I can absolutely assure her that packaging will be included in the broadest sense of the word. If she wants me to define “retail packaging” versus “packaging”, I can do so in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Interpretation of Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 69 sets out definitions to be used within the Bill, such as those to identify certain tobacco products—such as herbal smoking products—retail definitions such as retail packaging, and vape-related phrasing such as “vape” or “vaporises”. These definitions were previously covered in clause 34 under part 1 of the Bill.
Clause 70 simply provides the definition of nicotine product used throughout part 4 of the Bill. The definition that we use here is intended to capture nicotine delivery devices and products other than vapes and tobacco products. That will enable us to regulate emerging products, such as nicotine pouches, which we know are being used increasingly by young people. We simply cannot replace one generation addicted to nicotine with another; we know how damaging it is once someone is addicted. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I will not go over the same points I raised for the previous clause on the distinction between packaging and retail packaging. As the Minister says, the clauses relate to the definitions in this part of the Bill, so we have no strong quibbles. For clarity, I want to ask why the definition of nicotine product has been drafted in the way that it has. Why does the definition differ from that in clause 35 in part 1? Why have the Government not opted to define nicotine and tobacco products in similar ways, which would encompass both the ingredients and the devices used to consume them?
I note the carve-out of medicinal products and medical devices from the definition of vapes. Could the Minister tell us what, if any, discussions she has had with vape producers about designing a product that could be licensed as a medicinal product and potentially made available on prescription? If she has had no discussions, what does she see as the barriers? Lastly, has she considered whether there is any potential for other nicotine products to serve the same purpose as stop-smoking aides that are appropriate for clinical use?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The definitions are to provide the broadest and most flexible range of powers to clamp down on all the various illicit and under-age products designed to get children addicted to nicotine as early as possible. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about getting a licensed vape, and we have had discussions about it. Interestingly, so far no vape company has come forward to propose a prescription-only type of vape, as she suggests. That may happen in the future, and it is something we can perhaps discuss offline.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Extension of notification requirements etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Before being able to sell nicotine vapes on the UK consumer market, producers should ensure that their products meet the standards required under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and notify the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as to the contents and ingredients of their products and submit their contact details. Non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products are currently only covered by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, which means there are no requirements to notify for these products in the same way as nicotine vapes.
Clause 71 provides regulation-making powers to introduce notification requirements for non-nicotine vapes and other consumer nicotine products, and a power to introduce fees to cover the cost of administering the new requirement. Notification plays a vital role in the oversight and compliance of vapes to help ensure that products meet regulatory requirements and are safe for consumers. Given that the Bill gives powers to introduce new restrictions on vapes via future regulations, it is necessary to be able to amend the information required by the vape notification system.
New vape regulations will likely make several changes that would impact on the design and make-up of a vape, and it is essential that the notification system can be updated with new information requirements so that it remains effective in the future. That is why clause 72 provides a power to amend the information that must be submitted when a vape or other nicotine product is notified for sale on the UK market. Without that power, the notification system would likely not align with all future restrictions placed on vapes and would therefore become ineffective.
While the notification system is not an enforcement tool, enforcement agencies use the published information to distinguish between products that have been notified for sale on the UK market and those that have not. There is currently no means by which the MHRA can withdraw a notification from the published list—for example, if a required fee is not paid. As such, clause 73 provides a regulation-making power to create exceptions to the requirement to publish notifications—that is, to allow for a notification to be removed, for example, in the event where a required fee has not been paid. The regulations that may be made under powers in part 5 may relate to consumer protection, which is a transferred—that is, devolved—matter in Northern Ireland but remains a reserved matter for Great Britain.
I turn to clause 74, which provides that if regulations relating to the notification system contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care must obtain the consent of the Executive Office in Northern Ireland. The consent provision maintains and upholds the devolution position in Northern Ireland concerning consumer protection matters with respect to regulations made under part 5. The effect of the clause is to enable the powers in part 5 to be exercised effectively, respecting the devolution settlement with Northern Ireland. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Mary Glindon
My amendments to clauses 71, 72 and 73 are self-explanatory and I do not wish to detain the Committee on them any longer. The key to them all is that they would require the Government to consult on the new powers they are taking with these regulations.
Preet Kaur Gill
I will make some remarks about each of the clauses in turn. As we have discussed, this Bill finally addresses the issue of non-nicotine vapes, which have not been included in the same regulations and enforcement framework as nicotine vapes. In my view, that has left a left a significant loophole, undermining action to stop children getting hooked on vapes.
As I have remarked, I think most people would be shocked to learn that it is currently legal to sell vapes to children, even if they do not contain nicotine, given they could so obviously be designed as a gateway to addiction to the real thing. As I have also said, that is doubly concerning when we think about the explosion of illicit vapes ending up on British shelves. We know a considerable proportion of vapes labelled as 0% do in fact contain nicotine, giving me cause for concern that we could have allowed a spate of accidental addictions to these products.
Clause 71 is important because it allows non-nicotine vapes to be included in the notification scheme run by the regulator, the MHRA. The current two-tier system for nicotine and non-nicotine vapes is not currently robust, and that needed to change. Trading standards officers rely on the MHRA’s notification publication to identify illicit vaping products on the market. The blanket exclusion of non-nicotine vapes from that publication until now makes it much harder for them to identify products that are legitimate from those that are not—a gap that unscrupulous actors in this space are no doubt aware of and I expect have sought to exploit.
Including non-nicotine vapes in the notification process should allow for a complete database of products, while currently it is difficult to identify which products are legal or illegal, which really undermines enforcement action. I thoroughly welcome these new powers and I hope that the Minister will act quickly to remedy this issue.
What plans does the Minister have to quickly ensure that existing non-nicotine products on the UK market will be brought through the notification process? Has that work started, and if so, what is the timeline for its delivery? Does the MHRA have the resources it needs to manage this? Will those non-nicotine vape producers be required now to fund this work through their notification fees?
As we heard during evidence, the impact of vaping products on the developing bodies of children has the potential to be very harmful indeed. 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 health.
I also want to touch on the issue of other nicotine products. As other members of the Committee have touched on, those in the industry who are hellbent on addicting a new generation to their products—this has been a very profitable business model for them—will probably seek to pivot to other products. Nicotine pouches is one such area. Given the notification process in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 was designed for vapes, it would not be appropriate to apply that process word for word to these very different products. Can the Minister say what preparatory work has been done on that issue?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady with further thoughts, but I think we have covered all the points that she raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Aaron Bell.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2024 - (14 May 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
The clause provides quite simply that, if any measures in this Bill did not apply to the parliamentary estate, they would do so by virtue of the explicit mention in this clause. It simply removes loopholes, and I commend it to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I would never want us to be accused of the damning political adage that it is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else, so of course I support the parliamentary estate being subject to the same regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Regulations: general
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Clause 76 provides that any regulations made under the Bill may make
“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”.
That is a very good set of words. This enables any regulations to introduce provisions for different purposes, as well as to make different provisions for different parts of the UK.
Clause 77 provides the procedures for making regulations under the Bill. Regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Minister are to be made by statutory instrument. Regulations made by Scottish Ministers are to be made by Scottish statutory instruments.
Preet Kaur Gill
As the Minister says, clause 76 provides that, where regulations are made under the Bill, the regulations may make
“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”,
and it allows regulations to introduce different provision for different purposes, as well as different provision for different parts of the United Kingdom. The explanatory notes to the Bill cite the helpful example that
“under powers in Part 5 (Notification requirements etc for vaping and nicotine products), different provision may need to be made for Great Britain and Northern Ireland”,
since Northern Ireland uses its own portal for publications. I expect our colleagues in the other place will have their own comments to make about the various consequential and incidental provisions in the Bill, but, as far as I am concerned, I am happy to see the inclusion of the clause.
Similarly, on clause 77, I have no substantial comments to make apart from noting how important it has been to ensure that the important new regulations that we are introducing through this Bill are implemented equally and at the same time across all four nations of the United Kingdom. I echo the Minister’s thanks to Ministers in the devolved nations for the constructive way in which they seem to have engaged with and supported the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause simply outlines the extent of the Bill: part 1 applies to England and Wales, part 2 to Scotland, part 3 to Northern Ireland and parts 4, 5 and 6 to the whole of the UK. It is a standard clause that helps the measures in the Bill to function effectively, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
As the Minister has set out, clause 78 outlines the territorial extent of the Bill. We have discussed many of these discrepancies with earlier clauses, particularly on the sale and supply of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. I have no further comments to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Commencement
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 79, page 42, line 16, leave out “and 8” and insert
“, 8 and (age verification policy)”.
This amendment to the commencement provisions would mean that NC6 (age verification policy in England and Wales) would come into force six months after Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Age verification policy—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business, and
(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on the tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises (“the business premises”) from which—
(a) tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers or vaping products are, in pursuance of a sale, despatched for delivery to different premises, and
(b) no other tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business is carried on from the business premises.
(3) Before the specified date, an “age verification policy” is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers or a vaping product on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers or vaping product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(4) After the specified date, an “age verification policy”—
(a) in relation to a tobacco business or herbal smoking product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers that the customer may have been born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy);
(b) in relation to a vaping product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the vaping product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(5) In relation to times before the end of 2033, the reference in subsection (4)(a) to the customer being born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy) has effect as a reference to the customer being under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (3) or (4)(b).
(7) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—
(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,
(b) documents that may be shown to the person selling a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or a vaping product as evidence of a customer’s age,
(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or vaping product,
(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed in the premises,
(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.
(8) A person who carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business must have regard to guidance published under subsection (7) when operating an age verification policy.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(11) In this section—
“the appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
“herbcal smoking product business” means a business involving the sale of herbal smoking products by retail,
“the specified date” is 1 January 2027,
“tobacco business” means a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail,
“tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business” means a business which involves any one or more of the following—
(a) a tobacco business,
(b) a herbal smoking product business, or
(c) a vaping product business,
“vaping product business” means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail.”
This new clause introduces a requirement on tobacco, herbal smoking or vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking or vaping products, or cigarette papers. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland.
Bob Blackman
I rise to support the amendment and new clause tabled in my name. I will save the Committee time and will not go through the amendment in detail, because obviously colleagues have it in front of them. The key point is that the new clause would introduce a requirement on tobacco, herbal smoking or vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy, covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking or vaping products or cigarette papers. It reflects that which is already in place in Scotland, where mandatory age verification has been a legal requirement for tobacco and vapes since 2017. A survey of independent UK tobacco retailers for Action on Smoking and Health in 2022 found that 83% supported the introduction of mandatory age verification for anyone aged under 25, with only 5% opposing it, and 91% supported it in Scotland, where it is already in force, with only 4% opposed to it.
I think we should take a lead from our colleagues in Scotland on this particular issue. The Scottish legislation is supported by guidance from the Scottish Government and the Government worked with trade bodies to ensure that retailers understood it. The Scottish legislation provides a legal underpinning to the voluntary Challenge 25 scheme, which operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. A voluntary scheme such as Challenge 25 is by definition inconsistent in its application, leaving some customers unsure about whether they will need to provide proof of age. Seeking verification for anyone who looks under 25 is in line with the legislation for alcohol and is supported by retailers and by the Association of Convenience Stores.
One of the key challenges we face in this Bill is that of workers in retail units challenging people about whether they are old enough to buy such products. The new clause would make it clear that they have a requirement to do so, which would be a good defence for them when they are challenged by their customers.
As the explanatory notes to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill set out, the Bill updates the Scottish legislation to ensure that age verification is consistently and appropriately applied in line with the new age of sale restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. Ensuring consistency in the application of age verification is just as important for the other nations of the United Kingdom as it is for Scotland. Why should the Scots have this and not the rest of the United Kingdom?
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way when he was making such a compelling argument. I am also very grateful to hear him speaking so positively of the Scottish Government. He is almost doing my job for me, so I will not seek to speak on the amendment. I want to make it clear to him that I will not support the amendment and new clause purely because they do not impact on Scotland. That says absolutely nothing about my interest in the principles of what he is setting out.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am always willing to praise people who do the right thing. Unfortunately the SNP Government do not always do the right thing, as many of us know.
Extending the requirements for Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom is supported by the vast majority of the general public and of retailers surveyed by ASH in 2024. To quote John McClurey, a retired tobacco retailer from Newcastle who, during his 39 years as a small shop owner, successfully implemented the increase in the age of sale from 16 to 18, putting tobacco out of sight in his shops and introducing standardised packaging of tobacco products:
“Like the communities they serve, retailers support creating a smokefree generation by raising the age of sale one year every year from 2027 onwards. However, I know from experience it will be easier for retailers to implement if age verification was required from anyone trying to buy tobacco who appeared to be underage. This won’t apply to existing adult social smokers only to those who look as though they were born after 2008. It’s popular with the public as well as with retailers and it will be a legal requirement in Scotland, so why not the whole of the UK?”
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the case for his amendment. We have already debated clause 79 to some extent, and I raised my concerns that we were not introducing regulations to close the loophole on the free distribution of vapes to under-18s sooner.
On new clause 6 and amendment 24 I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that a mandatory age verification policy has been in force in Scotland for anyone looking under 25 since 2017. My understanding is that that is working well and, indeed, we also have Challenge 25 here in England and in Wales, although not on a legislative footing. The policy of providing a buffer can only help to ensure that those who are under-age, but who look over-age, are caught and are asked for ID—provided everyone knows where they stand and the Challenge 25 policy is well advertised.
As we have already discussed, the view taken in the design of these regulations is to put the responsibility for age of sale restrictions with the retailer, rather than the customer. The question the hon. Gentleman is raising is whether to make carrying ID effectively mandatory for customers buying cigarettes or vapes. I have a few concerns about that that I would like to raise. First, quite rightly, in order to be consistent with the rest of the regulations, his amendments put the responsibility for such a policy on the retailers. However, the effect of the policy would be to require customers to carry ID in order to buy these products if they were under a certain age. There does seem to be a bit of a disjunct, as that risks legislating twice for the responsibility to make sure that retailers do not sell to people who are under-age. Does this not suggest that the penalties for breaching the age of sale legislation need to be stronger in order to incentivise retailers to put robust policies in place?
I am slightly concerned that the policy will also remove flexibility when it comes to, for example, shop workers in local corner shops, who know their customers. Would they not end up having to ask people for ID every time, even when they already know they are over-age? Secondly, I just want to ask how the hon. Member envisages this working in the longer term, given that the age of sale for tobacco will rise every year? How will the Challenge 25 buffer be set accordingly? As it stands in his proposals, it would run out in 2033.
My other question is for the Minister. Presumably there has been a conscious decision to not align with the Scottish law on this subject. Can she explain why that decision was taken, on balance, when consistency in the law across Great Britain would surely be beneficial? Moreover, can I ask whether she has discussed this with Ministers in Wales? Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for tabling the amendment and I will be interested in the responses to the questions that I have raised.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, and with his amendment and new clause 6. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned some of the reasons why they are potentially slightly confusing and also, perhaps, unnecessary. I understand the point about the neatness of aligning to Scotland. The hon. Lady asked whether we have discussed this with Ministers in devolved Administrations and, of course, the answer is yes.
The decision we took is that the proposal that we have is adequate. New clause 6 would introduce a requirement for businesses selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and vaping products in England and Wales to operate an age verification policy. The policy would establish a customer’s age if they look under the age specified by the new clause. The new clause seeks to replicate the existing requirements in Scotland, and the related amendment 24 would mean the requirement to operate an age verification policy would come into force six months after Royal Assent.
For purchases of tobacco and herbal smoking products from 1 January 2034, when anyone born on or after the 1 January 2009 turns 25, the age verification policy would need to be updated to reflect the new age of sale for tobacco or herbal smoking-related products. That means that a person selling such products from 2034 onwards would be required to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they looked like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. The age verification requirement for vaping products would remain the same—that is, to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they look under 25.
Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s intention to ensure that retailers do not sell to anyone under-age, there is a fine balance to strike. We do not want to place undue burden on those retailers who understand their business and customers by introducing new mandatory age verification policies. It is already an offence to sell tobacco and vaping products to anyone under-age, and that is enforced by trading standards, who will continue to take an intelligence-led, proportionate approach to enforcing the law through age of sale test purchases. Retailers should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure they do not break the law. Most retailers already follow recommended practice and regularly ask for identification from customers, but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, they do not have to do so every single time if they know who the person is and they always buy products at that shop.
Under the new clause, failure to operate an age verification policy could result in a fine of up to £500 for a business on conviction. The Government feel that that is disproportionate and not what we are trying to achieve through the Bill with the introduction of fixed-penalty notices. The on-the-spot fines will complement existing sanctions, allowing trading standards to take swifter action to fine retailers that sell tobacco or vape products to someone under-age.
Bob Blackman
One of the clear concerns expressed by retailers—not necessarily the owners of shops but the staff who work in them and sell the products—is that if they can turn round to customers and say, “Look, it’s the law. I’ve got to ask you for your age verification. It is not something I can choose not to do; I have to do it,” that would strengthen their position. It would prevent arguments when they say, “I think you look under 25,” or “I think you look under 21.” That would strengthen their arm and make sure they abide by the law.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As I say, I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend’s point of view, but he will appreciate that Challenge 25 has been in place for a good long time, and it works reasonably well. It is well understood right across the country, and therefore the Government’s position is that it is not necessary to move to mandatory age verification.
I can also reassure my hon. Friend that we are investing £15 million a year in national anti-smoking campaigns, which will help explain the legal changes that the smoke-free generation policy implements. They will also prepare the public and retailers for those changes. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment and the new clause.
Bob Blackman
Given the Minister’s answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Transitional provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The clause provides a power to make transitional or saving provisions. Transitional provisions address how existing legislation will be phased out or replaced by new legislation, and saving provisions preserve certain rights, obligations or legal consequences from existing statute. Welsh Ministers can make transitional or saving provision relating to the coming into force of clause 27 and schedule 1, which relate to the handing over of tobacco to under-age people in Wales. Scottish Ministers can make transitional or saving provision in relation to part 2. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland can make transitional or saving provision in relation to part 3, and the Secretary of State can make transitional or saving provision in relation to any measures or part that has not been mentioned. This is a standard provision, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I have no further comments to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Citation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
This clause provides that the Bill may, in due course, be cited as the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2024. This is a standard clause, and I thoroughly commend it to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme with one or more of the following purposes—
(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products;
(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any manufacturer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products;
(c) providing for any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.”—(Bob Blackman.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bob Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members. Clearly, its concern is consultation on proposals for the regulation of profits from big tobacco —a recommendation of the all-party parliamentary group and of Javed Khan’s excellent report. The provision is designed to look at the profits of big tobacco, but big tobacco would not be allowed to pass on any calculated levy to its end customers. At the moment, it makes a veritable fortune every single year from selling its products. The new clause would limit big tobacco’s profits and, in doing so, its ability to market its products, but there would be no impact on, for example, tobacco taxation. My right hon. Friend the Minister might be concerned that the measure might delay the Bill, but the clear intention is to give the Secretary of State the power to conduct such a consultation; it would not prevent the Bill from going on to the statute book or from being enacted.
There has been a lot of debate over this issue for a long time. The Treasury appears to decline to do anything in this regard for some reason, but in my view, and that of the all-party parliamentary group, it is clear that this consultation could be done. The money raised from any such regulation could be directed at the national health service for smoking cessation services and to combat the effects of tobacco and other products, ensuring that people who wanted to quit could be assisted to quit.
I would welcome the Minister’s views. I do not want in any shape or form to impede the progress of this legislation, but I do want to get on record that I will continue to press for this provision, even if it is not agreed today, because I think it will bring into the health service much-needed money from big tobacco to help combat the impact of its products.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for raising the issue. As we know, separately from the Bill the Government are also introducing a one-off increase to tobacco duty as well as a vaping excise duty. I know that similar proposals to this one have been raised with the Government in the past, through the great work of the APPG on smoking and health. Previous Ministers expressed concerns that the proposals as previously drafted would serve to make tobacco companies pass on the cost to consumers in the shops. Undoubtedly, none of us wants any policies introduced that would come at the expense of consumers but miss their target: the tobacco giants. When it comes to addiction, we know that our most deprived communities are most likely to smoke. I am conscious of making their lives any more difficult. That said, I am certainly no proponent of any policy that would make tobacco cheap and easily available, and indeed it was a Labour Government who brought in a specific tobacco duty in the 1970s in the first place.
I understand that the revised proposal includes provisions to ensure that the Government can raise additional revenue from the enormous profits of tobacco producers, while ensuring the costs are not passed on. It is a complicated proposal that would require a team of officials within the Department of Health and Social Care to conduct market analysis, and for a tax to be set at a rate to hit those profits while regulating the prices in shops. Undoubtedly, something with as many moving parts as that would require thorough analysis and consultation, and I recognise that that is what the clause seeks to do. Given the existing levers we have available to us in tobacco duty and the focus we are trying to put on delivering a smoke-free future, I am reluctant to introduce something to the statute book that would distract from that priority. Through the Bill, there is already much consultation to be getting on with: on vapes, flavours, packaging and much more besides. I congratulate the hon. Member and the APPG on their excellent work, but this is not our priority at present.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
We heard during our evidence session about the immense damage that is done to our health, wellbeing and the economy, costing the public finances nearly double the amount raised by tobacco taxation. We also heard about the inordinate profits of the tobacco industry and about the idea of a polluter pays levy, which could raise up to £700 million a year. I hope Members would agree that that would help to deliver the smoke-free future that we all want to see.
I am vice-chair of the APPG and we have called for this proposal for many years, and it was great to see it in Dr Khan’s recommendations. The levy is popular and feasible and, as the report from ASH shows, is supported by voters of all political persuasions and the majority of tobacco retailers.
The tobacco manufacturers have the money; they should be made to pay to end the epidemic that their products are causing for our communities. However, I understand that there is still a nervousness from the Treasury and a reluctance on both sides to accept the new clause at this time. I hope that it will continue to be explored, so that the onus is put on to big tobacco, not the taxpayer, for paying for the damage caused by these products.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I also pay tribute to the all-party group, and to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East over so many years; the effort that he has made to get us to this point really is incredible, and I commend all hon. Members who have been a big part in trying to stamp out this horrible trade and its effect on young lives in particular. I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend’s request, and I hope that I can reassure him that the Government are determined to abide by the polluter pays principle, while not at this point wanting to accept an amendment that introduces a new tobacco levy, essentially because it would take years to bring into action.
The Treasury consulted on a tobacco levy in 2015 and, as set out in the consultation response, the Government’s preferred approach remains to continue with the proven and effective model of dealing with tobacco products through increases in tobacco excise and duties. As all hon. Members know, that generates up to £10 billion a year, which can support a full range of public services, including public health and the NHS. The Department of Health and Social Care will continue to work with the Treasury to assess the most effective regulatory means of making the industry pay for the undoubted and enormous harms that its products cause to our society.
Alongside the Bill, we are taking strong action to reduce the affordability of tobacco, which is an effective measure to trigger smoking cessation. The UK already has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. The World Health Organisation recommends that total taxes on tobacco are at least 75% of the retail price on typical cigarettes. The UK comfortably meets that target, with taxes at around 80% of the selling price. The Government have also committed to a tobacco duty escalator, which increases duty by retail price index inflation plus 2%, at each Budget until the end of the current Parliament.
Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the average price of a pack of 20 king-sized cigarettes has almost tripled in the past 15 years, from £5.37 in March 2009 to £15.66 in March 2024, and I can say that, when I took up smoking at age 14, they were about £1.50 a pack—I know I’m old, but that is an impressive escalation in the price. Cigarettes are also subject to a minimum excise tax, which sets a minimum amount of duty collected on a pack of cigarettes, discouraging manufacturers from selling cheap cigarettes by reducing the profitability of cigarettes sold at or below the minimum excise tax trigger price. The new minimum excise tax is £8.46 for a pack of 20, and applies to a pack of 20 cigarettes sold at or below £12.86.
We are going still further on tobacco tax. As announced in spring Budget 2024, there will also be an additional one-off increase for all tobacco duties, which will come into force on 1 October 2026, when the vaping duty comes into effect. From a financial perspective, that will incentivise people to continue to choose vaping over smoking once the new excise duty on vaping products comes into force. We currently do not believe that a tobacco levy would be an effective way to further protect public health or raise revenue. It would add complexity to the system and impose additional costs, and it would be unlikely to raise the amount of revenue envisaged due to the volatile nature of the tobacco market.
Bob Blackman
If I may, my right hon. Friend must have smoked for only a brief period because she certainly does not look old. Most of what she said was about the end customer and the cost to the end customer. Every time the Government raise tobacco duty, that makes the price for the end customer more expensive. What we are talking about is a levy on the profits of the big tobacco companies, which they would not be allowed to pass on to the end customer by increasing the price. That reduces their profit and potential to inflict more damage on the health of the country—that is what we are looking at. It is estimated that £700 million could be raised through such a levy. Of course, that would be only a dent in their profits, frankly, but it could be directed towards public health measures. Surely that is something that my right hon. Friend will want to look at—if not today, because obviously we do not want to add to the complexity of the Bill, then in the future.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I assure my hon. Friend that I am very taken with that proposal—I very much like it—but I make the point to all hon. Members that this is just not the appropriate place for it. As a matter of fact, as he will know, the Treasury can consult on and impose a tobacco levy at any point; it is not necessary to include powers in the Bill. As I have been saying, it would be complicated and would require consultation, and it could take several years to materialise. Our preference for the time being is to continue with high tobacco taxation and excise as the best means and most efficient process to generate finances that can be put back into public services. The Department of Health and Social Care obviously liaises closely with the Treasury on its plans. I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend’s proposal, but I ask him to not press it to a vote on this occasion.
Bob Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Notification fees
“The Secretary of State may by regulations vary notification fees for novel tobacco, vaping and other nicotine products in order to include costs of enforcement and testing.”—(Bob Blackman.)
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to vary the level of notification fees collected by the competent authorities in order that fees may be used to cover the costs of enforcement including product testing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bob Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is my show this afternoon! New clause 3 looks at the notification fees collected by the authorities, so that fees can be used to cover the costs of enforcement, including product testing. It would enable the Secretary of State to change those fees by regulation, and to look at what big tobacco and the vaping industry are doing to introduce novel products.
We have talked throughout the Committee about the ability of tobacco and vaping companies to vary their products considerably. We are of course trying to ensure that we capture everything we can so that we future-proof the legislation. New clause 3 would future-proof elements of the notification fees, raise some money and act as a barrier, frankly, to companies trying to flex their products to avoid the whole point of the legislation, which is to create a smoke-free generation and prevent young people from starting to vape. The Committee has already heard about the attitude and approaches being taken, particularly now by vaping companies, to market their products. The new clause would give power to the Secretary of State to do something about it by preventing those companies from bringing products in that no one wants to see on the market.
Preet Kaur Gill
The new clause relates to the testing of nicotine products and seeks to allow notification fees to be used for more than just the administration of that scheme but a wider, more comprehensive regulatory process, which we have supported. We have discussed clauses 71 to 74 on modifying the notification scheme to include non-nicotine vapes and extend to other nicotine products. Will those clauses allow for the notification fees regulations, which set fees at £150, to be amended accordingly?
I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East, as ever, for his work. I must remark that I rather regret that we have scheduled a debate on funding a notification scheme to test products before agreeing on the merits of such a reformed scheme itself. I look forward to coming to that in detail with two of my new clauses shortly, but I note that I do not necessarily agree with the Member that it should be a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency competence to conduct enforcement. My issue with this process has been how products are getting on to the market in the first place. I would not want to disrupt or diffuse responsibilities for cracking down on the very real issue of the widespread market in illicit vapes. I think that that should still primarily be a matter for trading standards on the ground. None the less, I commend the Member for tabling the new clause, and I hope that he will support our proposals on testing.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for bringing this discussion before the Committee. He has given the Bill a great deal of thought, and I am so grateful to him for that. His new clause seeks to change the level of fees for novel tobacco, vaping and other nicotine products, so that they can be used to pay for enforcement and testing costs as well. I support the ambition of the new clause but, as he will know, we already have the ability to test products and to take decisive enforcement action where and when illegality occurs. The notification system, as he will know, is not an enforcement tool and cannot currently be used as such. It is the responsibility of trading standards to ensure compliance of vaping products and to remove non-compliant—that is, illicit—vapes from the market.
To help to tackle illicit vapes, we announced new funding last year to set up an illicit vaping enforcement unit to gather intelligence and conduct market surveillance. This programme of work, led by National Trading Standards, is helping to stamp out criminal activity and disrupt illicit supply, and we have been testing products as part of it. As colleagues are aware, we also recently announced £30 million of new funding per year for enforcement agencies. This will crack down on illicit tobacco and under-age tobacco and vape sales to support the regulations put forward in the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not push the new clause to a vote.
Bob Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Retail licence for sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products
“(1) The Health Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 13 (Power to amend age for sale of tobacco etc.) insert—
“13A Retail licence for sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products
The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a scheme in England to require a person to obtain a licence before selling tobacco, e-cigarettes, novel nicotine products and related goods.””—(Bob Blackman.)
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation schemes to require the licensing of sale of tobacco, vaping or nicotine products.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations limit the places in England where tobacco, vaping or nicotine products are available for retail sale.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to limit by regulation where tobacco, vaping or nicotine products can legally be made available for sale.
Bob Blackman
There is a degree of repetition in this. New clauses 7 and 8 relate to where tobacco products are sold and the licensing of them. There is a genuine debate, in both the industry and the House, about whether we should have a licensing scheme for tobacco, vaping and other nicotine products. These two new clauses would allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations both on a licensing scheme and to limit the products that would be made available for sale in particular premises. The whole purpose behind this provision would be to say that the individuals who are selling these products would have to apply for a licence. Presumably, after a consultation, there would be a licence fee. That would add to the ability of the enforcement agencies to know that these products were properly licensed and being sold from licensed premises.
There is of course the issue that this could limit the number of retailers that would be able to sell such products. One concern that I have in this regard is not so much on tobacco but on vaping. We have seen, up and down the country, the rapid growth of stores selling just vaping products. They have—without doubt, without question—been selling to younger people, and we are concerned about the rapid growth of those particular areas.
There has been quite considerable legislation limiting tobacco sales over the years. We can go back over the age of sale. We can talk about the advertising displays. We can talk about keeping the products literally behind shutters so that people have to ask for the products rather than their being openly and clearly available. The two new clauses would get us to a position whereby there would be a requirement for the proper regulation of those markets. I know that the intent behind the Bill is to create a smoke-free generation, but we are taking on the vaping issue as well. At this stage, we propose that, if such a scheme were to be introduced, the Secretary of State would need to consult on those issues. I do not intend to prevent the Bill from progressing, but the Secretary of State will need to consider these things, whether during the later stages of the Bill or subsequently.
Preet Kaur Gill
I do not have much to add, but note that when the Bill was introduced some in the tobacco industry lobbied MPs to include a licensing scheme for vapes only. It would be an egregious situation if we were to take a stronger stance on vapes than on tobacco, which is the real killer. I suspect they hoped for the inclusion of something like that primarily because it would slow the Bill down. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for tabling a more balanced new clause, which would introduce licensing schemes for tobacco products as well as for nicotine products and vapes.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will she set out why the Government have not opted to set up a licensing scheme for tobacco and vapes? We have a licensing scheme for alcohol in England and Wales, but the Government have never sought to extend it to tobacco, although it would help us to identify shops that sell the products and streamline our enforcement efforts. I appreciate that many of sanctions related to licensing that are often cited, such as the power to take a licence away, are perhaps a less strong argument in relation to this Bill, because we have restricted premises and restricted sales orders, but I am interested in the Minister’s views.
On illicit products, the Government have introduced a track and trace system for tobacco, which is a useful component in monitoring the flow and patterns in the trade in tobacco products around the country. Given the improved provisions for product IDs, which will come into effect for products entering the country when the new vaping excise duty is introduced, we remarked in Committee that this could be an opportunity to look at setting up something similar for nicotine and vaping products.
I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Harrow East that enforcement will be crucial to the Bill’s success, but my view is that our priority must be to make a success of the enforcement regime that the Bill introduces before considering the case for further regulation. There probably will be a case for further regulation in future.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, and to the hon. Member for York Central, who proposed a similar licensing scheme; other amendments that have not been debated also proposed the creation of a licensing scheme.
I was frank this morning, and I will be again: the proposal sounds like a licence for those with licences to squeeze out those who cannot get licences and therefore to build more market share for themselves, enabling them to funnel their energy into getting more children addicted to nicotine. That is my personal view. We can debate whether that is the likely result, but it seems extraordinary that the vaping industry should be so in favour of licensing when, on the face of it, it is so clearly against its interests. I find its backing of it quite cynical.
From a practical point of view, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already operates a track and trace system for tobacco products, which tracks their movement from supply through to sale. Every business involved in the supply of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco must be registered on the tobacco track and trace system, and HMRC can penalise businesses for non-compliance, including by removing their ability to legally buy or sell tobacco products, in the most serious of cases.
As Members will recall, in oral evidence the Chartered Trading Standards Institute told the Committee that HMRC’s track and trace scheme gives many of the same benefits as it would want from a licensing scheme. The Government also plan to introduce a new excise duty on vaping products. HMRC is currently consulting on the new vaping duty, and that consultation has a question about whether to introduce a track and trace system for vaping products to regulate the supply chain. That consultation will close on 29 May, and I feel it would be inappropriate to bring forward a licensing scheme for vapes when the ability to track these products from supply to sale is currently under consideration.
Bob Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Prohibition of sponsorship: vaping substances containing nicotine
“(1) A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a vaping substance containing nicotine in the United Kingdom.
(2) A sponsorship agreement is an agreement under which, in the course of business, a party to it makes a contribution towards something, whether the contribution is in money or takes any other form (for example, the provision of services or of contributions in kind).
(3) A person does not commit an offence under this section—
(a) where it is alleged that the purpose of what was done as a result of the agreement was to promote a vaping substance containing nicotine in the United Kingdom, if the person did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that that was its purpose, or
(b) where it is alleged that the effect of what was done as a result of the agreement was to promote a vaping substance containing nicotine in the United Kingdom, if the person could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be its effect.
(4) A person does not commit an offence under this section if he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the contribution referred to in subsection (2) was made in the course of business.
(5) This section comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(6) The day specified may not be later than 1 June 2026.”—(Kirsten Oswald.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kirsten Oswald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As Members can see, new clause 9 seeks to stamp out the advertising of vape products in sports. We can all—or perhaps just those who spend more time than we should watching football—think back to days in the past when our favourite football teams ran about the park with cigarettes advertised on their shirts. We would find that quite unthinkable now; it would just be unacceptable. Similarly, we would find it unacceptable if our sports stadiums were named after tobacco companies or cigarette brands, but it is still possible—in fact, it is happening—that sports kits and sports grounds are sponsored by vape companies. I cannot think that should be acceptable when we look at the comparators, and I do not think sports is an appropriate place for vape advertising.
In the evidence sessions, experts told us about the deeply challenging impact on young people of vapes and vaping. We know that it impacts on their education as well as on their health. We heard this morning in the recent statistics from ASH that a very significant proportion of our young people are vaping. We need to deal with that. The vast majority of those young people have never been smokers, so this is not vaping for the purposes of smoking cessation, but a new addiction that has taken hold. It is our responsibility to try to deal with that. We will have to deal with it while being aware of the incredible and fast-moving marketing and product development that the industry has shown it is all too capable of bringing to bear. We also heard from the chief medical officers, who were uniformly keen that sports should be a positive influence. Anyone can go back and read the transcripts to see how they variously described it, but that was certainly the order of the day.
Smoking cessation is important, and smoking cessation and sport are things that can be positively connected, but that is very much not what is happening. We need to be clear that young people are seeing sports and vaping together, when we really should be taking steps to prevent young people who have never smoked from seeing vaping as something they may want to do. I have heard others say that now is not the time to do this—that we should not use this Bill. I have to say that yes, this is absolutely the time for us to do it. If it is not this Bill, then I really begin to wonder what on earth would be the vehicle for us to take this step. This is the time.
People may be fed up of me speaking about this—I am almost fed up of me speaking about this. I have spoken about this for years, on and on and on, but I am going to keep speaking about it until it is fixed. I want the Committee to think carefully about it. I am sure Committee members may have noticed that, through whatever stroke of good luck, I have had the first question in the last two Prime Minister’s questions, and I have asked the Prime Minister to think very carefully about this issue. It is something that is very important for all of us in this place to do. I hope we are now getting to the point where we agree that it is time for us to act, that this is the vehicle where action is best placed and that we should put a stop to vape advertising in sports, once and for all.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause. We will come to further new clauses that deal with advertising for vaping products. We are clearly now in the position whereby if anyone suggested that football teams should have tobacco advertising on their shirts, they would be laughed out of court. That is equally true in all the other circumstances that the hon. Lady described.
I have a lot of sympathy with this proposal, but I am slightly concerned that it is limited to particular sporting events. In my view, we need a comprehensive ban on the promotion of vaping products. When the chief medical officer gave evidence to the Committee, he rightly said that if you smoke, it is safer to vape, but do not take up vaping. We should not be allowing vaping companies to advertise their wares, particularly to younger people. As I said this morning, 7.6% of young people aged 11 to 17 are regularly vaping. That is a serious concern, because they will be addicted to nicotine and will probably have to escalate their nicotine demand as time goes on.
My concern is that the new clause does not go far enough. The hon. Lady has raised the issue on several occasions, and is rightly banging the drum. I agree with her: it is a disgrace. I think I am right in saying that Blackburn Rovers football club just agreed a sponsorship deal for their shirts with a vaping product, which is a great shame, but it has chosen to do that.
The chief medical officer also said that, right now, the vaping industry does not have a product that doctors could prescribe to help people to quit smoking. That is a challenge for the industry. If it is serious about encouraging people to quit smoking, it needs to develop a product that doctors can prescribe and help people to quit smoking. If it is not going to develop that product, that demonstrates that all it is trying to do is to hook people on to nicotine.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Gentleman is generous in taking my interventions. I am not entirely sure that these two things are totally connected. He is quite right that the vaping industry has questions to answer, but I do not think that has anything at all to do with whether it should be okay to advertise vaping companies and vaping products on football shirts, on sports stadiums or in any other way that is proximate to sport. We need to be clear that this practice specifically needs to be stamped out. On the questions the vaping industry has to answer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I have the same ones; we can crack on and get them answered, but let us not not do this.
Bob Blackman
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady asks for. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, in dealing with this new clause and the other new clauses about advertising, to go away and come up with a comprehensive series of amendments that will ban advertising for vaping products in their entirety—not just in sports stadiums and not just on sports shirts, but comprehensively, right across the piece. We can then all support that and make sure we deliver it in the Bill.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire for tabling the new clause. We absolutely share her concern: we must ensure that children are not exposed to marketing and branding that encourages them to vape. I echo the comments of the chief medical officer: if you do not smoke, do not vape. These are not products for children, and we are determined to crack down on companies trying to addict a new generation to nicotine. The principle that the hon. Lady has raised is really important, which is exactly why the previous Labour Government legislated to end sponsorship by tobacco companies.
Although sponsorship for vapes is not prohibited outright, as it is for tobacco, there are clear restrictions on how vapes and nicotine products can be marketed at and advertised to children. For example, the 2016 regulations prohibit e-cigarette product placement or any sponsorship promoting e-cigarettes on radio and TV programmes, where they are most likely to be widely seen. Most crucially, they ban ads for nicotine-containing vapes from most online media, including social media. The very limited exception to that is factual, not promotional, claims on companies’ own websites.
Why has the Minister not aligned the legislation in this respect with the extension of other regulations that we have discussed in Committee? Elsewhere, non-nicotine vapes and other nicotine products are essentially treated under the same regulations as those that affect nicotine vapes.
I again thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire for sharing her concerns, which I fully appreciate. I hope the Minister takes this proposal away and looks at it more closely. The restrictions on broadcast sponsorship aside, I would have expected her to be able to share more comprehensive data from the regulators showing what children are being exposed to and where. Will she address that head on and write to us with more detail if she needs to? In the meantime, my greatest concern remains promotions in store and on social media.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Lady says that Labour is determined to crack down; well, here is her opportunity. She is not cracking down if she does not deal with this issue. She says there are clear restrictions on how these products can be advertised or marketed to children, but children can see football strips and sports stadiums. I do not know about anybody else’s children, but mine watch football on the television, and they can see what is advertised on football strips. I would like her to take that thought away with her.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but as I said my greatest concern remains promotions in store and on social media, because that is where lots of young people consume this information. My view is that we need to get on with cracking down on the companies that deliberately sell these products to children in the first place.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I fully support what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire says about sports marketing and vape companies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for the work that she has been doing in this policy area, and I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East just suggested.
With this Bill, we have perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to send a clear message to the tobacco companies. More importantly, we can say to young people, our children and parents generally, “Do not take up vaping.” Vaping has always been meant to be about stopping smoking, but sadly it has become a stand-alone product. I was shocked when I walked through my neighbourhood of Pimlico last week and saw that we now have a huge stand-alone vape shop that sells only vapes.
The new clause seeks to do the right thing, but it does not go far enough, so I ask the Minister whether we can step back, before Report, to understand what the Government can do to send a clear message about all advertising, marketing and sponsorship across the whole nation, whether it is TV or radio advertising or any form of sports sponsorship. We have to treat vapes as we treat tobacco.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I thank all hon. Members for this discussion. I have to say that I agree with them. It is extraordinary that vapes are advertised and promoted in places that are seen by children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire for her determination on this matter. She and I were discussing earlier the fact that we both know teenagers who tell us that in many cases it is not one in five vaping but more like four in five. I think that will resonate with a number of hon. Members, so we have to do everything we can.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who I believe is the only paediatrician in the House. She has done so much to seek to improve all health issues for children, but she is particularly passionate about this area. She is away on a trip with the Health and Social Care Committee, quite rightly, but I regret that she cannot be here to debate this issue. I know that she would have strong views; I have heard her speak powerfully about the need to clamp down on advertising and sponsorship.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. I am not unsympathetic to how she has set out her logic, but I would be more comfortable if there was something more than a commitment to explore formal steps to impose further restrictions. What does that mean? I do not know whether the Minister is able to tell me or whether it is in order for me to ask. I want it banned. [Hon. Members: “We all do.”] I want it banned in the field of sports, and I am open to it being banned in all the other fields that have been mentioned. Committing to explore formal steps to further restrict it seems slightly less than certain to me. Is the Minister able to give me a little more certainty? I would be happy to withdraw the new clause if I were certain that it was going to be contained in a Government amendment, for instance. I just want to make sure that the issue is dealt with once and for all.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I would like to give the hon. Lady the reassurance that I will be coming forward with proposals from the Government to address the issues that have been raised.
Kirsten Oswald
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Testing of samples of nicotine-containing e-cigarette products
“(1) Regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) At end insert—
‘(12) The Secretary of State may—
(a) approve and monitor one or more laboratories (“approved laboratories”) which must not be owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the tobacco or e-cigarette industry; and
(b) arrange for an approved laboratory to verify the product requirements referred to in this regulation.
(13) For the purposes of enabling the Secretary of State to perform functions under paragraph (11)(b), a person who produces e-cigarettes or nicotine-containing liquids, or manufactures e-cigarettes or nicotine-containing liquids for export must provide to the Secretary of State (or to such person as the Secretary of State may specify) such samples, at such times and intervals and from such sources, as the Secretary of State may reasonably require.’
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.”—(Preet Kaur Gill.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to approve laboratories for the purpose of testing product requirements of nicotine-containing vaping products set by the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and to require manufacturers to provide samples for testing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13— Report on the powers of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency: vaping and nicotine products—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament examining the case for giving the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) the explicit power to—
(a) request samples and test vaping and nicotine products as part of the notification scheme; and
(b) recall and remove from the list of notified products vaping and nicotine products which do not comply with product standards.
(2) The report should also examine the case for a requirement for local trading standards authorities to notify the MHRA of any instances where vaping or nicotine products are being sold which—
(a) have not been notified to the MHRA; or
(b) do not comply with product standards.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations give effect to any recommendations made in the report.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Preet Kaur Gill
I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 13 on the testing of nicotine-containing vape products. Earlier we debated clause 73, which will allow Ministers to create new exceptions to publication as part of the notification scheme. We of course welcome those new powers, which represent a concession on the Minister’s part. However, the current notification process, which is what products must go through to get on to the UK market, is not as robust as it should be for nicotine-containing vapes.
As we have said, youth vaping is a serious 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 ASH, the number of children aged 11 to 17 who are vaping regularly has more than trebled to more than 140,000 British children. Meanwhile, one in five children have now tried vaping.
This issue is not only a concern in itself, but there is the issue of whether all these products are safe and whether they are what they say they are. I have raised serious concerns, for example, about the fact that children are puffing on 0% vapes that actually do contain nicotine, which gets them accidentally addicted. This is something that we discussed at the evidence session and that goes to a fundamental question about the MHRA’s role in the regulation of vapes. Is the MHRA really only the administrator of the notification scheme, or should it have a clearer responsibility to regulate and to take responsibility for the safety of vaping products?
Clause 73 indicates that the Minister agrees that it should. This is something one would expect the MHRA to take an interest in. Vapes are a product with clear consequences for the health of the population. There are risks, and some of the long-term health consequences of sustained vape use are not properly understood, but the Government’s policy is effectively to recommend this product as a stop-smoking aid. The Government, therefore, have a responsibility to be able to say with confidence that the products they legally allow on to the market are what they say they are and are safer than smoking.
We heard evidence from Dr Squire, the chief healthcare quality and access officer at the MHRA. It was an interesting discussion but, when it came to the notification process, what I took away was the fact that she could not say, “This is an absolutely robust system that keeps everybody safe,” and, “That is why the Bill is important.” I supported clause 73 to provide exceptions to publication, which would allow policies to be set where the MHRA would refuse to publish the notification for products that would make them available for legal sale. My concern, however, is about what is missing from the legislation to give the MHRA the information it needs to say confidently whether a product is actually safe.
I want to be clear in case the Minister raises it: new clause 11 is not about undermining the enforcement role of trading standards teams. After a product gets to the market, trading standards proactively ensure that potentially dangerous products are not stocked on shelves, and we have the yellow card scheme for customers to report an adverse reaction to a vaping product. Who is monitoring the long-term risks of these products? I doubt they would be caught by either trading standards or the yellow card scheme, but that is another question.
In relation to new clause 11, however, what I am talking about is the screening of products before they get to the UK market to enable the MHRA to have the information it needs to refuse a notification publication, even if the company has, on paper, met the requirements. I appreciate that the exceptions in clause 73 are not yet defined, but the MRHA does not have the powers to gather the information it needs in the first place in order to make those exceptions. As Dr Squire admitted herself, there are cases right now of products getting on to the market that do not match the product registered through the notification scheme. Those products could have tank sizes that are too large; they could include dangerous chemicals or include dangerously high nicotine strengths.
Our fundamental concern is that these products are now extremely popular with children. That is why I contend that the MHRA should have additional powers to test a proportion of products to ensure that they comply with their notifications. I think any outside observer would contend that that is common sense. The Secretary of State has testing powers for tobacco products, so why not for vapes? Will the Minister therefore support my new clauses, which seek to address that through this Bill? This is not just about the market as we know it today; this is about safeguarding the future of vapes to ensure that consumers can have confidence in those products and that we, as legislators, can have confidence in the products that we are recommending as stop-smoking aids. That is why I commend new clause 11 to the Committee.
Finally, new clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to report on some of the new powers on testing that I have just described, as well as on another power that the MHRA does not have at present, which is to remove notifications from publication. Currently, this power rests with the Secretary of State in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 to recall a product if it is deemed to pose a serious risk to human health. This is a high bar. It is my concern that in practice the emergence of such risk can be a slow process.
I have told the Minister before how the limitations of this power were made clear the other year when Elf Bar, which is perhaps the market leader in this space, was found to be selling vapes with tank sizes that were larger than allowed. The responsibility to remove those products from the market actually lies with the producer—quite rightly—but this issue is about the recourse that the Government have when a threat is urgent and a company does not comply.
New clause 13 would also examine the case for a duty to be applied to trading standards that would be similar to the duty on councils in Northern Ireland to share intelligence on non-compliant and illicit products, so that we can better join up the enforcement response at the national level. Once again, I urge Members to support these new clauses and I commend them to the Committee.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing these issues before the Committee. These new clauses seek to give more powers to the MHRA to introduce a testing regime for vaping and nicotine products, and to ensure that the laboratories conducting the testing are independent of the tobacco industry. They also aim to give the MHRA powers to remove notifications and thus prohibit the sale of products if they are found to be non-compliant.
New clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to produce and lay before Parliament a report to consider whether the MHRA should be given new powers to request and test samples, and to remove vaping and nicotine products from the list of notified products. The report would also have to examine the case for a requirement for local trading standards authorities to notify the MHRA of any instances where vaping or nicotine products are being sold that have not been notified or are non-compliant.
I am very sympathetic to the aims of these new clauses, but the current notification system is not an enforcement tool and should not be viewed as such. It is the responsibility of trading standards to ensure compliance of vaping products and to remove non-compliant—that is, illicit —vapes from the market and stop their sale. It is also the responsibility of trading standards to test a product if they believe that it contains illegal substances or too much nicotine. The MHRA supports this work by providing intelligence from the notification system.
New clause 11 would facilitate the previous new clause by giving powers to the Secretary of State to approve, as part of the testing regime, certain laboratories that are not in any way funded or controlled either by the vaping industry or the tobacco industry.
The Secretary of State can already commission independent laboratories to undertake the testing of vapes, in order to check and confirm that they meet our regulatory standards as set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. We can also produce relevant guidance to support this work, so the new clause really is not needed. Trading standards, supported by the MHRA, work with local scientific services that are independent of the tobacco and vaping industry in order to test vapes and to take action where non-compliance is found. These testing facilities support our enforcement programmes.
In fact, last year the Prime Minister visited an independent lab in Kent that checks for specific ingredients and harmful substances. The Prime Minister, who was accompanied by the chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, described the laboratory as “a centre of excellence” and said that it was at the frontline of testing, providing vital information in the campaign to tackle illegal vaping.
In summary, although I completely understand and support the aims of each of these new clauses to ensure that products are rigorously tested, adhere to our regulations and do not pose additional risk or harm, we can already test products, and indeed do, using quality-assured laboratories for this work. In addition, there are tough penalties in place for those who break our rules, including unlimited fines and prison sentences. As hon. Members know, we have also provided new funding and support to help local trading standards to enhance their enforcement capacity and to test products. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady not to press her new clauses to a vote.
Preet Kaur Gill
I say to the Minister that my concern is about certain products entering the UK market in the first place. If the MHRA is the only organisation that can test what has been notified, it will be supplied to us, but we know that what arrives is sometimes not actually what is in the notification process. If they were testing before the product came into the UK, that would be the point at which we want to try to address the growth in the illicit markets. I hope the Minister will consider this, especially before Report.
I will not push new clause 13 to a vote, but I would like to push new clause 11 because it is really important. The point is about what comes into the country. The MHRA in evidence actually said that it recognises that what is notified that eventually enters the UK is not exactly what is on the notification process.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am channelling my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and her passionate work as a consultant paediatrician or, as she would say, the children’s doctor in the House. I regard her experience highly. As technology evolves, so do our habits. This new clause seeks parity for smoking and vaping, so that the same rules that apply to smoking in public places will also apply to vaping, thereby protecting non-vapers from exposure to harmful substances.
As the Minister put it, we know that vapes are not harmless, but we think that they are less harmful than smoking cigarettes. I acknowledge that there is a lack of evidence—we heard this in the evidence session last week—but I think there is also a lack of research into the evidence on the impacts of vaping. Could the Minister reassure us that evidence will be sought on the impacts of vaping, not just on those who are vaping but those who are in the vicinity of vaping products? We should be trying to prevent the normalisation of vaping products, particularly among children and other impressionable audiences. We have heard much about the principle of polluter pays, which I absolutely agree with, but it is equally important to prevent the pollution and avoid promoting polluting substances to the potential polluter. That was an awful lot of Ps.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes a strong argument but, on the other hand, Cancer Research says that there is no comparison between passive vaping and passive smoking. I know many former heavy smokers who have given up smoking and now vape, and that is one of the reasons why I am such an ardent supporter of vaping as opposed to smoking. It is awful for those people to have to go outside and stand with smokers. If people are not allowed to vape indoors, there should be a separate area for vapers. Does she not agree that such a situation sends out the message that vaping is dangerous when we need heavy smokers to give up smoking, and vaping is the best way for many of them to do that?
Trudy Harrison
I welcome that intervention, but we cannot ignore the trebling of the number of 11 to 17-year-olds who are starting to vape. However much the Minister says that people who are not smoking should not vape, and that no children should be vaping, that is not the reality in the communities that we serve. It is certainly not the reality in my Copeland community. I think the hon. Lady is saying that vaping helps us to fix the problem, but I am equally keen to prevent the problem. The rate at which young people are taking up vaping needs serious consideration, but we also need serious evidence-gathering to understand not only the harms that could be caused by those who are vaping in the vicinity of others, but nicotine addiction.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech on behalf of herself and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who I am sure will be very pleased with the contribution. However, I have to say that I agree with the hon. Member for North Tyneside because the evidence that we heard strongly suggested that smoking and vaping are not commensurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is entirely right that we need further evidence, but perhaps we should be looking at evidence-based policy making so that we make the policy when we have the evidence. The best way forward would be to seek such evidence.
Trudy Harrison
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is really what I am calling for, although it does not detract from the need to prevent the normalisation of vaping. However, I repeat the request for more in-depth research into the impacts of vaping and nicotine addiction on children.
Preet Kaur Gill
Most public places are already smoke free on a voluntary basis. We do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to make such a legal requirement, which would risk increasing the widespread misperception that vaping is as harmful as smoking. In the United Kingdom, vaping is already prohibited on a voluntary basis in most, if not all, places visited by children; public transport—trains, airports, planes, buses, coaches and ferries—most, if not all, sports stadiums; music venues; many hospitals or hospital grounds; restaurants and cafes, at least definitely those used widely by children; and a lot of pubs and bars. As was discussed in last week’s evidence sessions, the health harms underpinning the smoking ban are not proven for vaping, and such an approach would be hard to justify on health grounds. This would be a complicated piece of legislation to introduce, and now is not the time at which, and the Bill is not the place in which, to do so.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland for moving the new clause tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I think all hon. Members are keen to see much more evidence on this issue, and I absolutely share that concern. I have urgently commissioned research into the impact of vaping on both the vaper and those second-hand breathers-in. As we all heard during the public evidence sessions, and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow set out, we do not have the evidence. We therefore need to provide evidence-based regulation as a matter of urgency, and I absolutely assure hon. Members that that will be forthcoming.
It is certainly the case that the ban on smoking in indoor spaces has been a great public health success story since its introduction in England in 2007 and across the UK from 2006. There is no doubt that the ban has protected many adults and so many children from the harms of passive smoking; it will have saved lives.
We know that vaping is less harmful than smoking, and indeed is a very effective quit aid for adult smokers. Although I have grave concerns about whether we err too far on the side of saying “Vaping is much better than smoking,” and are therefore inadvertently saying to young people that it is fine to vape, which of course it is not, that is why we also always say, “If you don’t smoke, don’t vape, and children should never vape.”
Although smoking in a public place may be seen as a nuisance by some, and there is some evidence that it can trigger asthma attacks, in the same way that pollution or car exhaust fumes can, there is very limited evidence of the potential harms of vaping in enclosed spaces, and simply none to suggest that it is at all similar to tobacco smoking. Vapes emit vapour, not harmful tobacco smoke. Vaping does not burn tobacco or produce tar and carbon monoxide—two of the most harmful elements in tobacco smoke. Evidence of the harm from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke is well established, and because of its carcinogenic content, there is no safe level of exposure. It is totally incomparable to vaping, where there is very little evidence to suggest that second-hand vapour is anything more than an irritant. I repeat: that is not to say that vaping is good for anyone or a good thing to try. It absolutely is not. We know it is extremely harmful to children, whose lungs and brains are still developing.
In addition, many businesses, venues and spaces have already introduced their own bans on the use of vapes where smoking is prohibited, such as on public transport, on work premises and in many restaurants and bars. In 2016, Public Health England produced guidance regarding the use of vapes in public places and workplaces, which has helped businesses to make informed decisions on their vape-free policies, but given the lack of evidence of any harm from second-hand vapour and the way that the majority of businesses, restaurants and bars self-regulate and have vape-free policies in place, as well as the fact that vaping in enclosed spaces was not raised in our call for evidence as a major issue to address youth vaping, we just do not feel that the new clause is necessary at this time.
We will of course keep this under review and continue to monitor the evidence base. As I said, I have urgently commissioned proper research into the effects in the short, medium and long terms, and I hope to make further announcements on exactly what I am doing during the Bill’s passage.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Sometimes I think that when people listening to this debate hear the words “no evidence” or “lack of evidence”, they assume that that means there is nothing at all wrong with vaping. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to anyone listening that there is a difference between not having done sufficient studies to gain the evidence and having no evidence of any harm?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend is exactly right: saying that we do not have the evidence right now is not the same as saying that vaping is not harmful. As I said, the chief medical officer has said that although we can be fine consuming strawberry sherbet ice cream in our tummies, it may not be so good to inhale it. We simply do not know what the truth is. We do believe that carcinogens may be innate in some flavours, and we know that vape products can contain heavy metals in the coils. We know that there can be significant harms from vaping, especially to children. I am happy to state once again, “If you don’t smoke, don’t vape, and children should never vape.”
With those remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland will not press the new clause to a vote.
Trudy Harrison
There could be no better Minister to convince me of her concern for babies, children and young people. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I am flying a bit free here, but new clauses 16, 19, 20 and 22, all tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, may have been caught by the Minister’s commitment to look deeply into the advertising issue and might therefore not be moved. However, I want to give Members the opportunity to do so if they wish.
It appears that the Minister’s reassurance has convinced the Committee.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I rise to thank all Members, on both sides, for their time, their focus, and their really well thought through and considered contributions in this Committee. The scrutiny has been carried out in the best traditions of this place, aiming to achieve something that this Parliament can be proud of.
I also thank you, Sir Gary, for your excellent chairmanship—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—and all the other Chairs who have taken us through this life-changing Bill, as well as the officials and civil servants who have supported us, and the Bill team, who did extremely well in putting this together. Finally, I thank the Clerks, who always brilliantly support everything that goes on in this place.
Preet Kaur Gill
I echo the Minister’s thanks. This Bill implements a flagship public health policy, and all of us are privileged to have taken part in the passage of this world-leading legislation. It is really important that we have heard so many powerful testimonies about the health impacts of smoking, but parents are also worried about the increase in youth vaping, so the fact that we are to ban the marketing and sale of vapes to children will be welcomed by many people across the country.
I put on record my thanks to you, Sir Gary, for brilliantly chairing our sittings, and to the Minister, who has been very gracious in her responses. I thank colleagues on both sides of the Committee; it has been brilliant to work with them all and to reach a degree of consensus, although I have no doubt there will be many more things to discuss on Report. I also thank the Clerks and everyone on the Bill team. It has been a privilege.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Football Governance Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Football Governance Bill 2023-24 View all Football Governance Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2024 - (14 May 2024)
The Chair
We will now hear from Darryl Eales, chairman of Solihull Moors football club, and Steve Thompson MBE, managing director of Dagenham & Redbridge football club. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Steve Thompson: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Thompson and I am the managing director of Dagenham & Redbridge football club. I have been at Dagenham & Redbridge—well, it was Dagenham football club when I was first there, 41 years ago. I have seen Dagenham go from the Isthmian League to League One, and back down again to the Conference. I was involved when we had the merger with Redbridge Forest in 1992. I hope I will be able to answer some of your questions.
Darryl Eales: Good afternoon. I am Darryl Eales, chairman and majority owner of Solihull Moors football club. Prior to that, I owned Oxford United from 2014 to 2018 in the English Football League.
The Chair
Before I ask Members to put any questions, I declare an interest: I am the patron of my local football club, Southall football club.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Q
Steve Thompson: In my opinion, I am worried about clubs at our level being over-regulated. Most of our clubs work on one or two full-time staff. Some of them are run by volunteers. We already do an awful lot of financial regulation reporting. There is reporting to the National League and a licensing certificate that we get from the Football Association. Many of us took advantage of the Sport England winter sports loans. The quarter reporting on that—I appreciate that it is public money—is so onerous, and I am really worried that the extra reporting that will be required by National League clubs will be more than a lot of them can manage without taking on extra staff.
There is also the cost of the regulator. We are not 100% certain how much a National League club will have to pay for their contribution. Those are some of the concerns with the set-up of the regulator. The support we need is a better understanding of how that will work.
Darryl Eales: I agree with Steve. I think this is about proportionality and reflecting the resources available to clubs at our level. That is simply because we do not have the financial resources or the distributions from central funding that, obviously, English Football League clubs have to support the growth of an administrative function to support the information requirements of the regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Steve Thompson: It is imperative that the amount in fees charged to National League clubs is really proportionate, for example, between us and English Football League Two clubs. They receive 14 times the amount that a National League club receives in central distributions and solidarity money. Leaving aside the central distribution—because it could be argued that that is what the league itself raises—with the Premier League solidarity money, last season an EFL club received £519,000 each whereas a National League club received £69,000. Next year, the Premier League solidarity money for an EFL Two club will go up to £550,000; for a National League club, it will stay at £69,000—that is an eight times difference.
When Dame Tracey set up the fan-led review, I was lucky enough to be on one of the calls to present on behalf of National League clubs. One of the things that clubs at our level want to get out of this is a better financial package. The gap is going from seven and a half to eight times; we should be reducing that, not increasing it.
The other thing that the Bill does not address completely is three up and three down, and artificial pitches. As far as I am concerned, the majority of my supporters and people around my club believe that the regulator is going to deliver that. I understand why it is not in the Bill, because there are bigger things, but there is definitely a perception from supporters that three up and three down will be on the table, and artificial pitches will be allowed into the Football League. It is not there.
In the last three years, we have had three clubs promoted that had artificial pitches, and another one with Bromley this summer. Those pitches have mainly been funded by Football Foundation grants. They have been put in to support their local communities, and they have got to be ripped up. What a complete waste of money. It deprives their communities of those pitches.
With three up and three down, Darryl will speak for himself, but unfortunately last week Solihull Moors lost out in the play-off final. We have one club going up automatically and then another club—it is the only league in the pyramid where that happens. Last season—or the season before the one just finished—Wrexham won, and Notts County went up via the play-offs. Had they not won the play-offs—they nearly did not get to the final—they would have not gone up, and they had over 100 points. That would never happen anywhere else in the pyramid, but it happens in the National League.
The problem we have is that the last time a second promotion place was given was 2001. Some of the Committee might be old enough to remember that that was related to the ITV Digital collapse, when the FA stepped in and paid an extortionate amount of money to keep League One and Two clubs running. In return, we were given a secondary promotion place. My opinion is that we will only get a third promotion place if someone buys it. The only people in football these days that can buy it are the Premier League. That should be a condition of any new solidarity funding between the Premier League and the EFL. Sorry—I am talking too much.
Darryl Eales: To pick up on what Steve said, having read the Bill, for me there is not enough focus on the regulator contributing to ensure that there is a level playing field across the pyramid—I do not even think the pyramid stops at the National League—and there is not enough focus on the crucial value of grassroots football to the whole pyramid and to communities. One of my friends runs a step nine team, and it costs him £50,000 a year to run that club. We get £60,000 a year of solidarity money in the National League.
For me, the regulator has to understand the philosophy of English football and the value of grassroots football. That seems to be missing. Obviously there is regulation, but it needs to understand that most owners at our level are stakeholders for fans and just want to move the club forward sustainably to the next owner. I would question the ownership motives of a lot of owners as you go up the pyramid, because we strive every day to look after the best interests of our clubs and generally we are not paid.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Steve Thompson: We have a fan representative on our board; the season ticket members elect a representative on our board, so I hope that we try to be in tune. We have at least two fans’ forums, where anybody is invited along and they can ask questions of me and of the manager. But at a small club, you are walking around the ground and the bars before and after the game and talking to people, and if there is a problem, they soon come up and tell you.
Darryl Eales: Similarly at my end, we have a monthly meeting with the SMSA—Solihull Moors Supporters Association—and we work very closely with them. From a personal perspective—this is just me—I go for a beer before every game, both home and away, with the fans in the bar, exactly as Steve says, because people will pick up on their concerns. From a community perspective, we run about 65 youth and junior teams; every weekend, they are running around in Solihull Moors shirts.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Q
Darryl Eales: The interesting thing for me is that the Bill does nail a few points that are very, very important from my perspective. The stadium and the club should be umbilically linked. There should be, for every club, something that prevents owners from separating out the ownership. In our division this year, Gateshead did not make the play-offs, because they did not have tenure of their ground. To me, that seems to be fundamental. Where I echo Steve is that I think there are an awful lot of information requirements in the Bill. When I talk about proportionality, the reality of life at our level is that it will be us doing those things, and without being too rude, I have better things to do with my life than fill in forms.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Q
Steve Thompson: Sutton United are a prime example from a couple of years ago. They went up and had to dig up their pitch. It was very much part of their community and their academy structure. Bromley are in the slightly fortunate position in that they have some land behind the stadium, where they are going to transfer the artificial pitch to, but it will still cost them several hundred thousand pounds. The annoying thing is that Sutton played Arsenal in the FA cup a couple of years back, and Arsenal, who are in the Premier League, happily and readily played on Sutton’s artificial pitch when they were at the National League side—no complaints. Every year, EFL clubs in the FA cup will play on artificial pitches, so that does not seem logical.
There are some arguments about how good the football is on such pitches and things like that, but the majority of young players at the top level now are coming through the EPPP—elite player performance plan—academies, and they all play on artificial pitches. It does not make sense. We have had this happen to four clubs in the past few years, and it is stopping other clubs that have the ambition to be promoted considering putting down an artificial pitch. That might help their community and their academies, but they think, “We can’t do that, because we can’t afford to put it in and then dig it up again.” Supporters are almost turning around and asking, “What’s your ambition?” The ambition of most clubs is to win their league, whatever league they are in, and to go forward.
That brings up another thing about academies at our level, and making certain that clubs at our level get the proper compensation for players that they have developed. At the moment, there is not that—National League clubs are not allowed to register a 16-year-old. Such things are not addressed in the Bill. Whether they should be, I do not know.
Damian Collins
Q
Steve Thompson: Since 2001, when the second promotion place was introduced, some clubs have gone up and down, but before the end of this season just gone, 40 different clubs will have been promoted, and 29 of them are still in the Football League and one is in the Premier League—Luton Town. For teams that are struggling in the Football League, when they get relegated, the National League is a fantastic league for them to reorganise and to come back. There has been a number of them: Stockport and Wrexham, to name two. The football pyramid needs the National League. We have developed lots of players on loan from the Premier League, the Championship and other Football League clubs, and we are there to help support clubs.
Darryl Eales: To pick up on what Steve said, for me, the distribution of economics is completely inequitable between the two leagues above us and our league—so much so that other than the promotion from the Championship to the Premier League, the next most valuable promotion is from the National League to League Two, which I think drives Steve’s point, but we are entitled to only two promotion places. Fans, when I talk to them—from every club—say, “We don’t understand this.”
Damian Collins
Q
Steve Thompson: We were the first league to introduce reporting to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. About 20 or 25 years ago, a lot of football clubs were basically using HMRC as a bank, and HMRC was reluctant to take football clubs to court. The National League—the Football League has followed us—introduced the rule that HMRC reports to the league if a club is behind with its HMRC or VAT payments, and the league will immediately put them on a registration embargo, which concentrates people’s minds. Since then, we have not had a problem, because when a manager comes and says, “I want to sign a new player,” and you say, “You can’t, because you haven’t paid HMRC,” they look a bit silly. We have quarterly reporting to our league and an annual licence with the FA. That is why I worry that this will just be another layer of bureaucracy.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Q
Darryl Eales: To me, it just does not start off in the right place from a contextual perspective. It tends to be completely focused on money, rather than the English game in its broadest context. You have only to go around your own local community to see the number of kids—girls and boys—now playing on local parks that have been funded by parents or local businesses. There does not seem to be anything in the Bill that reflects the community aspect.
Ian Byrne
It is, yes.
Darryl Eales: It is quite complicated. If you asked me about sanctions—I am probably going off-piste here—I would say that financial sanctions and points deductions do not work. The only sanction that will stop clubs flouting rules is relegation—three or four leagues. Even this season—and I know this is nothing to do with this Committee—the points deductions in the Premier League meant absolutely nothing. The clubs flouted the rules, but there was not a big enough points deduction to affect their league status. I am a Birmingham City fan by background, and we had a 12-point deduction a few years ago. I thought it was a joke, because we did not get any penalty from it other than the 12-point deduction.
Ian Byrne
Q
Steve Thompson: We work with supporters and have different supporters’ groups. We also work in our community; all our clubs have a community trust, and all the Football League and Premier League clubs will have a community trust. Everybody does lots of work in the community. As parliamentarians, many of you will know that at the 2010 election there was a big British National party problem in Barking and Dagenham, and as a football club Dagenham & Redbridge stood up and made a big thing about that. A couple of months before the election, there was a big game, and McDonald’s was selling burgers for 99p, so I said, “We’ll let everybody in for 99p, with kids in for 25p.” We had the managers of small local football teams buying all the players a ticket and it costing less than a fiver.
That put out a message, and it was an important message. At the time, I was reported as saying that we are in a white working class area, as it was in 2010, that the majority of our supporters are white males, and that if there are 10 BNP councillors out of 50 in Barking and Dagenham, some of the supporters must have voted for them. We had a really multiracial team at the time: we had a Barbadian international, a South African player and a Muslim player. We had several. I turned around and said, “You’ve got to show them that you can’t be cheering on a multicultural team on a Saturday and then expect them to all go home on a Monday.” That took traction. We stood up. Darren Rodwell, who might be part of this establishment within the year, will turn around and say that “he”—unless I am in the room, in which case he will say “we”—kicked the BNP out of Barking and Dagenham. That is the power of your local football club. We can stand up and do things like that, and it is important that we can. The supporters will go with you.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Q
If the Bill goes through, there will be a statutory regulator. What discussions have clubs had with the National League about whether it will row back and allow the statutory regulator to do the work so that there is no duplication?
Secondly, the independent experts we had in this morning said that clubs are looking in the rear-view mirror at the moment and that the advocacy-first approach means that there will be a real-time approach to analysis of clubs, which would be helpful for clubs. Do you agree?
Steve Thompson: I was quite hoping that the regulator would work with the National League, the EFL and the Premier League, allow them to continue with their reporting, and step in only if there was a problem with particular clubs. It would be a much more light touch. We have discussed that before. I understand that that will be down to the regulator, but I was hoping it would be more like that.
Darryl Eales: I think the forward-looking approach is to be welcomed. I am an accountant by background, and I am very happy to share my ideas on how that approach can put more pressure on owners to be financially responsible. The only reason football clubs get into trouble is their playing budget, so there needs to be some linkage between your playing budget and the financial resources of the owner.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Q
I am interested in how clubs fail, too. This touches on what the Minister was just saying: where should the balance of the regulator fall? Should it simply issue licenses, have a fitness test for owners, and so on—take more of a “control the bad actors” approach—or should it be more interventionist and say, “We think there’s a problem here; we think there’s a mismanagement. They’re going to make a mistake, and it’s going to cause problems”? Where does the balance properly fall?
Darryl Eales: That is quite a toughie.
Robin Millar
Q
The Chair
We do not have much time left. Please be brief in your answer.
Darryl Eales: For me, a critical part of the fit and proper person is: what is the motive of a person who is taking over a club? As you go up the pyramid, it is not clear to me what the motives are, beyond financial. My concern, looking at other sports, is that it is missing the fundamental trick that clubs in the UK are stewarded for the benefit of the fans. They are not franchises.
Steve Thompson: I agree with that. Even at our level, there is not a big queue of people trying to buy a football team. It is about being involved with your community, and that is what is important.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time for this Committee to ask questions to this panel. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much.
Steve Thompson: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair
Q
Ian Mather: Hello. I am Ian Mather, and I am the director of Cambridge United. I was on the board in 2018, and prior to that I was a solicitor in private practice for 35 years. In that time, I spent a period doing insolvency work, which was good training for looking at football. I became chief exec in 2019 on an interim basis while we did the change of ownership, and we moved from 705 owners to one. That was meant to last for a season but then covid hit. I stayed for another season, and then we got promoted, so I stayed for another one. I have a good insight into how the world of football works and the economics of football.
Sharon Brittan: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sharon Brittan, the chairwoman of Bolton Wanderers football club. I came into football five years ago, having only been in the game from the perspective of being a fan of Burnley football club all my life. I had not worked in football before. Prior to that, I worked in industry, which I still do alongside football.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Ian Mather: I can give you a real-time answer to that. We are currently at the point in the season where contracts come to an end and we renegotiate new contracts with players. Without giving you the names of individuals, the pressure is on for a 30% pay increase for players who have been under contract for two years. That is a sense of entitlement. Where is that coming from? It comes from the level of money in the football league above us, which has a wash-down effect.
I will specifically address the point of parachute payments: if you pump £100 million into the top of the pipe, that is bound to start appearing at the bottom. Therefore, the pressure on us, as a League One club, is ratcheting up each season. We were in League Two in 2019-20, and every year since we got promoted, the owners are being asked to pay more money. We have a brilliant lead owner, Paul Barry, who is absolutely Cambridge United through and through. He went to Seattle and made money through a business, but he loves Cambridge and will be there any time he can be. His mum and his brothers are season ticket holders, and he supports the foundation in Cambridge.
As Cambridge United, we are in one of the poorest parts of Cambridge. If you follow the inequality of the UK, the Gini coefficient says that Cambridge is the most unequal city in the country. We are in the poor bit, and our owner really wants to do what he can to help that community, and we do loads. However, the effect of consistently having to put more money into the hopper to have any hope of staying in League One—and then staying in League Two—is just more and more pressure. The risk is that it affects the owner model, which is broken. If our wonderful owner were to move on, which is unlikely—it is more likely that his heart gives out under the pressure—who will replace him? In 2019, 2018, we were looking at alternative buyers for the football club, because Paul was not sure at that stage if he could commit the whole lot; I would describe them largely as tyre kickers and property speculators, and we had had enough of those.
The club went into administration in 2005 because it was badly run, but a lot of people out there are interested in owning football clubs for the wrong reasons. We have an owner who really wants to own it for the right reasons, but increasingly revenue does not equal cost, and that gets bigger and bigger and bigger each year. On your point, if that carries on, eventually it is our owner or some other good owners who will say, “I cannot do it any more.” We then populate our football world with owners who are not motivated in that way.
Sharon Brittan: Can I give you a bit of preamble before I answer your question, if that is all right? I came into football five years ago for two reasons: one, because I love the game, and two, because I wanted a platform to do good. Having worked in industry, I wanted to come into football and run a football club the way that I work in business, which is by having the right people in the right way doing an honest, transparent job and coming together as a team and about the impact that that would have on the community.
I cannot explain the pitiful situation that I walked into at Bolton Wanderers in 2019. The previous owner had left the club—I cannot even say on its knees, because it was beyond that. There were staff and people in the community who had not been paid and were eating from food banks. People had not paid their mortgages or their rent. Their mental health and wellbeing, which I do a lot of work in, were beyond catastrophic. I have seen at first hand the impact of having the wrong owners at football clubs and the effect that that has on the community. I have worked with Rick Parry over the last five years, and I cannot stress enough that the owners’ fit and proper persons test must be stringent.
Football in the UK changes people’s lives. We have the ability, as owners of these football clubs, to make change, give people hope and help them. More so than ever now, even since I came into the football club, people have very difficult lives, and it is about not just money and what we must pay in League One as the salaries, but the impact that the whole football pyramid has. That is why the financial distribution must be fair to give us as owners the opportunity to continue the work that we are doing. I still go into Bolton on a Saturday afternoon and have grown men crying to me, “You saved our football club. God, my family and you are up there with what you have done.” It is not just for the 300,000 people in Bolton: there is a wider impact than that. As good owners, a good owner will work with another good owner to ensure that that extends out further.
I am sorry that I am outspoken, but I work in an honest, transparent way with a good, clean heart, and people need to do the right things. This is a pyramid. It is not just the Premier League: it is the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. It is a travesty that it has got to the stage where all you very important, hard-working people must be involved and spend your time dealing with this when the football authorities have been unable to resolve it themselves. I am sorry to go on, but I have been at the heart of it for five years, and I am passionate about where this is going. The pressure has got higher and higher and higher in terms of what we must spend to remain sustainable.
Bolton is a big club, but I love sporting jeopardy; I think it is brilliant. I think the pyramid is absolutely brilliant. The promotion and relegation all add to the excitement, but the financial distribution will make a difference to every single club, regardless of its size. We have to seriously consider this if we get promoted on Saturday. I am a custodian of the football club—that is clear. This football club is owned by the fans, and to keep fans happy is a full-time job. I have to trust the fans—I work with them, I am there day to day, on the ground, with the fans on a Saturday afternoon. I also think that British owners understand English football—I was brought up in English football from zero to now—but we are losing that as well. That is another conversation, but we are losing that as well. But yes, it does cost more and more.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Sharon Brittan: All I would like the Bill to do is to bring in—it is just about doing the right thing. It is not even complex. That is what baffles me; it is actually relatively simple to do the right thing. Let me give a brief example: I have five original investors in Bolton Wanderers, who have bought into this journey and have done incredible things, supporting me as the chairman all the way. If we get promoted this Saturday, if we get into the Championship, everyone—our fans—will say, “It’s incredible, marvellous, wonderful—just fabulous!” and we will move into a world where it is not a competition any more. How can we compete with the clubs that have come down from the Premier League and have the Championship payments?
I am hugely respectful of money. I would have to go back to our investors to say, “We need £20 million a season to try to be competitive”—but we would not really be competitive. If you look back over the past six years, the chances are that you will see that the three that have come down, because they have the parachute payments, go straight back up. I want to go higher up the pyramid; the higher up the pyramid I go, the more good I can do for this country, the more impact I can have and the more I can help people who are less fortunate and who need help.
For me, the question is: do I get to the Championship? I have to be responsible to my investors. I have to be responsible to the fans who, if we are not competitive, will not be happy. When I moved to Bolton, the fanbase was finished, it was over, and now we get 25,000 coming to the home games, so you can see the impact of running a club properly and where that gets you to. But my dilemma is, do we continue in the Championship when we know that it will cost us £20 million a year? That £20 million a year could be put to doing other, really good things. I have to be a responsible human being and decide, “Do we want to remain there? Do we want to take that risk?” but it is impossible to take that next step.
The Chair
With respect, we have many questions, so may we have brief answers?
Ian Mather: I have a very short response: we need better financial distribution, and rules that bite to stop money being wasted through the game, so real-time regulation.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Q
Sharon Brittan: How delightful to have you here to endorse what I am saying!
Chris Green
I have some sense of this already, but does the Bill go far enough to empower the regulator in the distribution of funds?
Sharon Brittan: As things stand, the EFL would like to have some areas of the Bill looked at. I will not go into the detail, but I have a request. To me, Rick Parry, with what he has done over the past five years, is a man who has led an organisation in the right way. I am sorry, but I do not think that the Premier League have done the same. I would say that to them—anything I say, I will say to the person’s face; I do not talk behind people’s back and I do not gossip. Rick Parry has done a superb job. I have read through the Bill and we have talked through the areas where he thinks that the Bill needs to be amended. It is important that those areas are understood and agreed, and the amendments made. At the moment, the Premier League are not working with us, so if, after going to all this effort to get the Bill, we do not get the Bill quite right, it will cause further problems. I would like to see a Bill go through that is absolutely effective, so we can all move forward in a really excited way with our football pyramid. Football is global, and there is so much good we can do for this country, for the world.
Ian Mather: This Bill is really good in many ways. A lot of work has gone into it, and it is a thoughtful Bill, but there are flaws. One of the flaws, to answer your point, is the inability of the regulator to act if he or she sees that something is happening that makes football not sustainable. We are going to have the state of the game review, which definitely needs to be done quickly. Let us say that the state of the game review says that parachute payments, to pick an obvious one, are bad for the game. At the moment, it requires the EFL or the Premier League to trigger the backstop powers. You might say that the EFL would definitely do that, but actually, with the voting structure in the EFL, it might not. There are powers within the Premier League to coerce and influence clubs in the EFL so that that backstop might not be triggered. Why create a power for a regulator but not give the regulator the power to intervene if he or she definitely sees something is wrong? I think that is a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
Chris Green
Q
Sharon Brittan: It absolutely brings trauma, for the reasons that I gave before. I have to behave as a responsible human being, and it is whether I can then go to my investors and say, “Would you like to commit £20 million a year?” The reality is that you will fail. I want to be progressive every season, because like I said, when we are progressive, that gives me a bigger platform to do good. In the Championship, however, because of the parachute payments, it makes it almost impossible.
Chris Green
Q
Sharon Brittan: I completely agree. May I just say that in football, generally it can be a non-trusted environment? I have a football manager who has stayed with me four years and who has turned down three jobs in the Championship that would have given him three times his salary. I have a CEO who has stayed with me three and a half years. I have built a team of trusted people, because we are working in a culture where everybody has bought into the journey to where this football club is going. You can see that after five years, we are a differentiator in what we are doing in Bolton, and if more football clubs worked in that way, I am absolutely positive that it would enhance the economy and life for the 65 million people who live in this country, and beyond. I am on a mission.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Q
Sharon Brittan: It is a very good question. Football has—or has had—a habit of bringing semi-maniac types of people to the table. I think it is driven by ego. In those situations, it comes down to the fit and proper persons test. The previous owner at Bolton spent £180 million. He was a very good man, but a huge amount of that was spent trying to get out of the Championship. If you have someone who is hellbent and comes in just wanting to spend, I do not know if you can actually stop that, per se.
Ian Mather: Can I come in on that point? I think real-time monitoring would have been really helpful with a lot of the problems we have seen with football; Bury was a really good example. You look back over time and you think, “Well, that wasn’t very good. In fact, it was terrible,” but that was years ago. Actually, the ability to look at what is happening in real time is really important.
I know one of the criticisms is that that will be an expensive item for small clubs. As a small club, our turnover is £7 million. Let me put that in perspective for you. We have a Man City supporter in the room; Erling Haaland earns about £7 million in eight weeks. That is equivalent to our turnover. Nothing in this Bill causes me any trouble at all about form filling or submitting accounts. If you want to see our accounts—they might be four weeks out of date, but that is as much as you are going to get—our cash flow forecasts, forecast profits and losses, which are done every month, or our business plan, that is not a problem. I would not buy the argument that this is all cumbersome and difficult, because it just is not. That sort of monitoring would have helped to prevent problems like Bolton, Derby, Bury and a whole lot of other clubs experienced..
Mr Betts
Q
Ian Mather: That is a really great question, and one that would keep me awake at night. There would be lots of people who would want to come in and own Cambridge United. We get approaches all the time, and we just bat them off like flies, because none of them is particularly well motivated. When we last looked seriously, in 2018, there were a lot of poor owners. I know that some went on to other places, and I bet those clubs wished they had never seen them. Their interest was in property and profit, not in football.
Sharon Brittan: People go into owning football clubs for the wrong reasons, which we discussed earlier. That is why you have to have people who go into owning these football clubs for the right reasons—people who understand that the responsibility that goes with these clubs is enormous. I invite any of you to come to Bolton Wanderers and see what we have created. The work that goes into it is non-stop, every day. If you cannot deal with stress, you should be nowhere near owning a football club.
Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Q
Ian Mather: The thing that I fear is that it does not work in key places. On the parachute payment clause, protecting that does not work. I know that Rick has made the point, but I would endorse it: we are not against the concept of parachute payments if they are right. I do not believe that they are right, but let’s have a state of the game review and find out whether they are right, or whether they are an impediment to fair competition in the football world as we want it. But do not then hamstring the regulator so that it cannot deal with that problem, if indeed it is a problem.
The problems here are few: they are about who can trigger it, the parachute payments and how often you do a review. Those are the key issues. It comes down to the money. The other bits in the Bill, such as those about protecting heritage, are really good. We were looking at introducing a golden share in Cambridge United to give fans protection against things such as stadium moves and so on, but the Bill probably makes those redundant.
Sharon Brittan: Tracey, what you said about unintended consequences is really interesting. I have looked at the situation closely, and I like to look at both sides of the story, so we get a clear, honest picture from the Premier League side and the EFL side. I do not even understand unintended consequences; I cannot work out what he is referring to, unless I am missing something. I can understand the EFL’s argument, which is very clear and concise. From the Premier League’s point of view, I have so far not been presented with anything or read anything that has made me think, “What they are saying actually makes sense.” They have put together a very weak argument —I do not think there is an argument—and have conducted themselves poorly. I do not think they have presented themselves in the right way. They are arrogant. They think they are an island, on their own, sailing off and forgetting that 14 of the clubs in the Premier League have come from the EFL.
On how the pyramid works together, we loaned two players over the last two seasons. Both of them—James Trafford and Conor Bradley—went back to their respective football clubs, and they are absolutely flying in the Premier League and talking about their time at Bolton Wanderers. I could bring players to the table who will say to you that they have never worked in such a culture. People need to work in the right culture to bring out the best in them. There is enough stress in the world today.
On unintended consequences, I would love to sit down with Richard and for him to explain it to me because I do not understand it. They are just words, and there is no substance or arguments behind the words. I have not yet come across a cohesive argument to which I can say, “Actually, that’s a fair point.” I am not going to talk about the numbers—we all know the numbers. In my opinion, that this goes back to greed, envy, jealousy and thinking about me, myself and I. I cannot comprehend how someone can view this through that lens when we are a football pyramid, and what we do as custodians affects this country and beyond. We should be cherishing what we have here.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Q
Sharon Brittan: I completely agree with that. Even in the five years that I have been involved, I have seen better owners coming into the game because the EFL has changed the rules. You cannot having a bankrupt owning a football club, and you cannot have somebody who has been struck off; the rules are much more stringent. I do not want to talk about the numbers, and I do not like talking about them, but the problem we have is that in five years we have put a huge amount of money into the football club. Any sensible businessperson probably would not do that, because they would look at it and say that it does not make any financial sense.
Ian Mather: In direct answer to your question, I would say that it is the numbers. If an owner can look at a football club and think, “Broadly, if I run that club properly and well, with the income I get from running a football club and the sustainability payments from the Premier League, I can roughly break even. I may want to be ambitious and build a new stadium here, or improve the training ground, but broadly I can balance the books.” If you cannot balance the books, or worse, the books get more unbalanced each year, you are reducing the pool of people who can buy into being a football owner.
Sharon Brittan: I agree with Ian.
Damian Collins
Q
Sharon Brittan: Isn’t it fabulous? That is what I love about football: the near impossible can happen.
Ian Mather: I would also answer it by saying that a North American pension fund has provided—
Sharon Brittan: I did not want to say that!
Damian Collins
Q
Sharon Brittan: The Premier League has allowed 13 of our precious 20 football clubs to be owned by Americans. Lose one more and they make the vote. How has that been allowed to happen? The Premier League stops the FA cup replays without even consulting us. How has that been allowed to happen? The Premier League is not fit for purpose, in my humble opinion.
Damian Collins
Q
Sharon Brittan: If this Bill goes through, I would love to fast-forward three years and see where Bolton Wanderers are. Then, you guys can see where a football club gets to when it is run properly in the right way, with the right people doing the right job in an honest, transparent and reasonably sustainable way. There is money, and obviously that helps.
Ian Mather: It is largely to do with money.
Sharon Brittan: But that is their good fortune.
Ian Mather: And Luton has come down again. You need money to drive success, and there is quite a clear correlation between league position and how much money you have, which explains why Cambridge United keep on cheating relegation. We are roughly around where we should be, and it is about the money.
Sharon Brittan: I am looking to get longevity of success; I am not looking to bounce around the pyramid. To get longevity of success, you have to create a culture that people buy into, so that they stay on the journey with you. So far, it looks like we are delivering, but we will see. I think that there are so many unscrupulous things that happen in football. Let us try to prevent those things from happening so that we can enjoy the game and the jeopardy.
Damian Collins
Q
Sharon Brittan: Please do not quote me as saying that! If we get rid of the parachute payments, that might be possible. Thank you—I am really appreciative.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
The Chair
We now hear from Tony Bloom MBE, chair and owner of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club, and Steve Parish, co-owner and chair of Crystal Palace Football Club. We have until 3.30 pm for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce yourselves for the record?
Tony Bloom: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Tony Bloom. I have been chairman and owner of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club since 2009. I will give a brief introduction about how I got to that position. I have been a fan of Brighton since I was very young: I was born and brought up in Brighton. My grandfather was vice-chairman of the football club in the ’70s, until he passed away on the team bus in 1980. My uncle has been on the board for almost 40 years. The football club and football is in my blood.
As some of you may be aware, we had some rogue owners in the 1990s. They sold our stadium, the Goldstone Ground, without a stadium to go to. We were really struggling. The owners did not keep the fans informed at all—in fact, they lied to the fans on an ongoing basis. It was the fans who saved the club.
The Chair
Thanks.
Tony Bloom: I will be quick. The point is that there is no doubt that the club almost went out of existence because of what happened. The owner of a football club should not be allowed to sell the stadium.
Steve Parish: I am Steve Parish, co-owner of Crystal Palace Football Club and also the chairman. Fourteen years ago I bought the club out of administration. It was its second administration in a period of 10 years. Since then we have been fortunate enough to have a level of success against what I think everybody agrees is a difficult backdrop and industry, where for some to do well others, unfortunately, have to do badly. It is very enjoyable, although as Sharon pointed out it is also very stressful. It is very much about the local community and the fans who we serve.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Tony Bloom: The Super League was a dreadful idea; in my opinion, it never had a chance of being allowed to go forward in this country. Apart from the owners of the six English clubs—it is different on the continent, where there was a bit more support—everyone was dead against it. Even the fans of the clubs by and large were completely against it: it never had a chance. I do not understand it, apart from not wanting to miss what they thought was the gravy train. It would have been terrible for English football and for Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. Because of what those six clubs did, it has brought a bad name to the Premier League, which is such an amazing product. It certainly does not help clubs like mine.
Steve Parish: We believe that the effect of it on the Premier League would have been catastrophic as the top four positions would not really have mattered. The race to the Champions League and relegation are obviously the two things that preoccupy most football fans, and obviously there is the Europa League and other things as well. However, if there was no consequence to getting into the top four—in fact, if you could finish 10th and still qualify for a European competition—that would obviously make a mockery of all the domestic leagues and the whole meritocracy of football. Sadly, that still goes on.
A stealth version of the super league is gradually coming into operation. If Aston Villa are fortunate enough, as it looks like they will be, to qualify for the Champions League, which would be fantastic for all of us and for football, they will not enjoy the same money for doing exactly the same thing in the Champions League as an Arsenal or a Liverpool will, because the amount of money you get is based on your five-year performance.
We are constantly fighting to have a meritocracy. As the manager of Atalanta said when they succeeded in Europe, seeing a club like that that does not have the fanbase or fan size do well gives hope to all the clubs, but there is a continuing move from clubs in Europe to pull the drawbridge up and create a permanence around qualification for Europe, which is something that we all have to be careful of.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
“Not a lot irritates me in football...Maybe the governing bodies of FIFA and UEFA, who both regulate the game but also run tournaments. There’s a big conflict there.”
Steve, in 2023 you were reported as saying:
“The people organising the tournaments and the people regulating them, and taxing those tournaments for the greater good, should be two different people.”
In the context of those quotes, are you pleased to see an independent regulator established that can help regulate football finances without a conflict of interest?
Tony Bloom: I was talking with FIFA and UEFA because they are always looking to create more tournaments and more revenues for themselves, such as the FIFA club championships. They were looking to have a World cup every two years. UEFA now have an expanded Champions League, which is in direct competition with the Premier League.
The domestic competitions are of the utmost importance to the country and to domestic football in this country, although the other ones are fine. What I think is absolutely wrong is that they regulate the game, yet they can distort it against the interests of the domestic fixture list and the domestic tournament. The FA is not looking to do that. It has one tournament—the FA cup. The FA works very well with the Premier League and the Football League in terms of that tournament, so they are very different things. I was talking about UEFA and FIFA, and for me that does not relate to the FA. That is why I do not think that the two things go hand in hand.
If you are asking me about a regulator, obviously a regulator is coming in. From my point of view as an owner of a football club, I am concerned about a lot of things. I do not think that anyone in industry is a great fan of having external regulation. If it is light touch and on things about sustainability and ensuring that clubs cannot sell stadia, their chance of going out of business is reduced and they cannot change their club crest or colours without discussions with fans, I am in favour of that, but I have significant concerns with a lot of the other things.
Steve Parish: FIFA controls the world calendar, so it takes first crack at the calendar. It is pretty clear that FIFA wants smaller, 18-team domestic major leagues and one cup competition, so there is a huge difference between the scope creep of their tournaments and the governance role that they should have in the game.
The issue is certainly not about distributions. In fact, if you are going to compare the distributions, I think UEFA give something like 5% of their overall income to solidarity payments, whereas the Premier League give 16% of their overall income even now to solidarity payments down the pyramid, so I do not think that you can compare those two things. In so far as you touch on somebody to adjudicate or the right person to adjudicate or look into whether the distributions down the pyramid are at the right amount or right level, there may well be some role in that, and it looks like that is where we are heading.
When we sit in the much-maligned Premier League, where we are all tarred with the same brush as being just full of self-interest, I can certainly speak for Tony and myself and say that we understand the position and obligation we have to the greater game. We also do not feel like we are permanent members of the Premier League—certainly not. Far from it, we know that pretty soon we could be back in the Championship. I am pretty sure that Sharon would agree with a lot of the things that we stick up for and advocate in the Premier League if she was in the Premier League. It is interesting that Sharon wants the ladder up and she wants to get there, but I am also pretty sure that, once she gets there, she does not want to just go straight back down again. She wants the possibility of staying there.
We have heard about parachute payments and all this distortion, but Palace did not get promoted with parachute payments, and nor did Forest, Brighton, Wolves, Brentford or Luton. In fact, Bournemouth did not get promoted the first time with parachute payments, and nor did Fulham or Burnley. There are a lot of prosperous clubs in the Premier League that did not get promoted with parachute payments—the average is one club a year. There are these causes célèbres, where everybody looks at things through their own individual lens. I understand that, and it is important that we have a broad perspective; my concern is whether the regulator will have that.
We are talking about a system that, at the moment, has served us incredibly well. We have got a democracy, really. Football is run by the clubs and their various governing bodies. Over the last 150 years, we have managed to make it the world’s most popular game. Within that, we have managed to make the Premier League the world’s most popular league. Of course, if we had a regulator that made all the right decisions all the time and was not lobbied by the big clubs more than maybe the smaller clubs, then of course that might be of benefit, but I am severely worried about the potential unintended consequences and the power of the big clubs to dominate the debate.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Steve Parish: The problem with football is that there are so many moving parts. Competitive balance and sustainability in some ways go hand in hand. If you look at Bolton as an example, there was a lot of money invested in Bolton. The infrastructure was massively improved. Yes, it got into financial trouble, but it did end up a lot better off, with a lot of investment over that period, and it enjoyed a sustained period in the Premier League.
My big concern is that if you only focus on sustainability, the biggest businesses can always cope with regulation the best. There is another chasm, which is between the top clubs in the Premier League and the rest of the clubs. If you look at the Bill, it classes relevant revenue as the broadcast income, but broadcast income is 75% of Tony’s and my revenue, and about 20% of the bigger clubs’ revenue. So straight away, it has the ability to competitively disconnect the league even further.
That is just one concern I have. Of course, if the regulator is well informed, lobbied by all the right people and comes to the right decisions, which create the right platform for football to continue to thrive, it will be a good thing. But when I read the Bill—when I see how, frankly, imprecise it is; when I see areas where the Secretary of State can interfere or where the rules can be changed; or when I see 116 different licences or each club being treated differently—I do see a lot of worrying issues that could arise.
Damian Collins
Q
Within the Premier League board, you have all those big clubs. Would it be more effective to allow some of the enforcement and supervision of the league’s rules to be done by an independent regulator that is, if you like, separate from the politics of football? It is set up by Government, it is not open to being lobbied or cajoled, and it is not making decisions on the regulation of clubs that it has to trade off against other decisions that are taken by Premier League clubs about how they organise the affairs of their league.
Steve Parish: If the Bill looked at the whole of football, that might be the case, but we are looking at it in a very myopic way. We are not looking at all the European revenue, the growing scope creep of European fixtures, the increase in the size of UEFA club competitions, or the gerrymandering of coefficients, so that even if we qualified, we would not get anywhere near as much money as a club that has been in the league three years previously. Within the Premier League itself, the top clubs have got—what is it?—four times our income. That is probably going to head towards five or six times our income.
The Bill, very narrowly, looks only at the Premier League media money. Actually, the Premier League is the most egalitarian by distribution in Europe by far. Where it is heading to right now is 1.8:1. Although that is worse for Tony and me, this is still by far the fairest league in Europe: in Germany, the ratio is about 3:1—the top club to the bottom club. So actually, in terms of distributing the revenue that it gets, the Premier League has done a very good job of making it fair and maintaining competitive balance.
The problem is that such huge revenue is now pouring into these clubs from European competition, and from the commercial deals that that gives them, that it is creating a massive distortion. What I fear this Bill will create is a permanent top six or top seven and then a kind of washing machine of clubs that will rotate between the two divisions below. That may well be what some people want as a vision for football. It is not mine. Mine, like Sharon’s, is to try to get into the Premier League and stay there. I accept it comes with jeopardy every year. I accept there are three relegation places. I accept that everybody is trying to stay in the league and it is highly competitive. But the aim, I think, of most clubs is to try to stay there, ladder up and improve.
Damian Collins
Q
Tony Bloom: Obviously I have had many years in the Championship and League One, and we have had many discussions there. The relationships between the Football League and the Premier League, I think, have got a lot worse since there was talk about regulating football. Overall, although there have been difficulties over the years, it has worked very well. But ever since the Football League has realised that there is going to be a regulator and, “If we can’t get a deal, there may be something from that,” things have not worked out so well, so I think there are, again, unintended consequences.
I think it is much better for football—the Football League, the Premier League, the National League and the FA—to work things out itself. Without it being perfect, I think the fact there have been three liquidations since 1992, despite the fact that, as you say, so many clubs are in financial distress—most clubs lose a lot of money every single year—is a very good result. You can look at other businesses. I know we do not want to compare businesses to sport; it is a completely different stratosphere. But I do worry about what will happen if you put in lots of extra regulation and lots of extra cost for the clubs, even though I am sure the Premier League will pay the vast majority of the regulator bill. I am just worried about future investors. That is absolutely critical.
Damian Collins
Q
Tony Bloom: I think it would be disastrous for the Premier League. The Premier League has done an amazing job to make it far and away the strongest domestic league in the world, and that is where we want it to stay. It is so important for this country. If that was to happen, then outside the biggest five or six clubs, which may think their chance of relegation is tiny, the clubs could not invest the money in players. And then what would you have?
In countries like France, with Paris, and also with Juventus and Munich, there is domination between the top one or two clubs and there is frequently only one winner in the league. The middle and bottom clubs would not be able to invest, and the differential between the top clubs and the middle and bottom clubs would be so big that it would not be so competitive. Then people would not want to watch it; the broadcast money would not be there; and we would veer towards Spain, Italy, Germany and France. I think it would be an absolute disaster. Clubs could not invest because of the worry about relegation. As it is, with the parachute payments, clubs still have to sell players, typically. Often, they get into serious financial problems even with the parachutes.
Mr Betts
Q
Steve Parish: The reality is that all around Europe and probably the world, football is a billionaire or millionaire-funded industry. That is the reality of it. It does not make money anywhere in the world. We are not unique: this is not a country where uniquely we lose money in football. It is not a business with a profit principle; it is a business with a winning principle. Whatever rules you put in place, people’s desire to win will always trump their desire to make money. So the problem is that if you restrict our league so much that we are taken out of that game, you very quickly could make us very uncompetitive in terms of a European landscape.
Mr Betts
Q
Steve Parish: I have put more money into my club in the Premier League than I used to in the Championship. I write bigger cheques in the Premier League than I did in the Championship. It used to cost me a lot less money to run in the Championship.
Tony Bloom: The reality is that across the world in sport—but particularly in football—clubs everywhere lose money every year. People put it in because they want to be competitive, and they want things for their community, and so the problem you have for every single owner in this country is that they want to be competitive, and they want to spend money, but they want to try to be sustainable—and the two are not compatible. Almost every club—and certainly every league—loses a lot of money. The Premier League loses a lot more money than every other league, and that is true on the continent as well. To be competitive, that is what you need to do—spend money. That will never change, whatever happens with the Bill. You will always have that, and you need to accept it, because that is the reality. Without that, or if you try to stop that, the Premier League would not be the best league in the world.
Mr Betts
Q
Steve Parish: That is not what we are saying at all. We are representative of every club like us; what I—quite clearly—said to you is that I believe that if Bolton were in the Premier League, they would believe what I believe, which is that yes, the pyramid should have a sustainable amount of money, or more money so it can better compete—as Tony says, it is very unlikely, in a normal business case, that any of these things will ever look sustainable; there are a lot of people putting a lot of money into football from their own pocket for the enjoyment of the public and their fan base—but there is another problem, and that is the growing wealth of the big clubs, and that has to be identified. What we need to do is make sure that when we pass these distributions down the league, they come from the right place and are fairly apportioned. That is not me being selfish—that is me being sensible.
Mr Betts
Q
Steve Parish: As I said, if you had a regulator that we all believed would uniquely make all the right decisions for football, of course we would be in favour of it. What you asked me is what my concerns about the Bill are; my concern with the Bill as a starting point is that relevant revenue is only broadcast income, which would be 75% of Bolton’s revenue should they get into the Premier League, and it is about 20% of the top six’s revenue. That straight away is an example of an area of concern.
I just want to come back on parachute payments, because I need to give you some numbers. In the Premier League, if you finish around midtable, you will turn over about £180 million—it is not an unreasonable thing to budget for. The first year in the Championship, with parachute payments, is about £70 million—so you have about an £110 million drop in revenue, which is pretty catastrophic for any business to try and contend with if they get relegated. Many clubs manage to get back in the first year—on average, it is about one a season for the last 10 years—but the average finishing position of a parachute club is eighth. Many clubs, like Stoke or Sunderland, disappear from the Premier League, and that big gap and big drop gets them in a lot of financial difficulties. This is why parachute payments are so important for the sustainability of football.
Tony Bloom: You talk about self-interest: that is not the case at all. I care about every football club in this country. I am not worried about the top six—I have not said anything about the top six. We have regulations in the Premier League, and if something is going to be changed, you need a two thirds majority; if they get two thirds majority, and the top six vote, and get a few more people, that is the way it is. I am not complaining. Football needs to vote, and the Premier League has its constitution; I have no issues with that.
I used to be in the Championship, and we had parachute payments. I was not complaining—we just worked away to try and be the best we could for our football club. I was never in favour of parachute payments when we went and won the Championship; I never voted for that or discussed that. All I was asking when I was in the Championship was for there to be a bit of sustainability so clubs did not lose an average of £10 million a year, which was voted against because clubs wanted to give themselves a chance to get promoted to the Premier League. I am saying exactly the same in both divisions.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Tony Bloom: Because of the talk of a regulator, as I said—
Stuart Andrew
Let me finish my question. There has been talk of a regulator for a much shorter period than there have been issues relating to the historical problems in football; this has not just happened since the publication of the White Paper or the fan-led review. The reason why the fan-led review was brought in the first place was that a solution had not been brought by football. My question again is why that has not happened, because that is why we are here today—because football has not stepped up.
Turning to another thing that I want to talk about, I agree with you and I am glad to hear that you want to see the sustainability of clubs within the pyramid. The independent experts who we heard this morning said that the problem in the past was that too many clubs were looking in the rear-view mirror, whereas this Bill presents us with a real-time approach that will identify problems much earlier so that they can be addressed. Do you welcome that?
My final question is about fan engagement—to change the subject completely. I am interested in whether you think the Bill hits the right notes on that and what you do there, because I hear that you have an interesting approach as a club.
Tony Bloom: In terms of fan engagement, we are a club that regularly engages with the fans. Even before talk of a regulator, we had many fan forums with a broad range of our supporters’ clubs. I do them, as do the CEO, the head coach and so on. We have seen in the last couple of years that we have a fan-led board and we have many meetings as well. Our relationship with our fans is really good. I can talk only about my football club, but if you speak to our fans, they would be very happy with the engagement. What was the second question?
Stuart Andrew
Q
Tony Bloom: When I was in the Championship about 10 years ago, there were big discussions, big debates and big negotiations with the Premier League. For sure, as you can imagine, the English Football League wants to have more revenues and a bigger percentage of the Premier League revenues. A deal was done—it was not easy, but it got done.
Of course the lower league clubs always want more money. As Sharon was saying, if she gets promoted, she is going to have a much bigger bill. If there was more money going into Bolton, no doubt for that season and the season after, things would be a bit easier, but have no doubt that when more money goes into the English Football League—the vast majority of it will go to the Championship—it will go on player salaries. That is what happens, so there will still be issues. Unless you have sustainability levels where there are caps on spending, and clubs have their money there, there will always be such issues.
On your first question, regardless of the Bill, the English Football League and the Premier League are becoming much more forward thinking in the way they have the football regulations for finance. Regardless of what is happening with the Bill, that is what the Premier League and the English Football League are looking to do, which I think is a positive thing.
Steve Parish: The implication is that nothing is being done. Profit and sustainability rules were the first step in trying to control spending. People have to realise that we are subject to competition law as well, and we are being challenged on some of these things within the league. Some of the things that the majority of clubs would like to do—salary caps in some instances, which some people would like to do, or the cost caps that we are working on at the moment, which are broadly salary caps—are challengeable under competition law, so we have to get advice and be very careful that we are proportionate in the things that we undertake.
In terms of why a deal has not been done, I think it is quite simple: it is the backstop. It was made quite clear in the last panel that view of people at the EFL is that whatever deal is given to them now, they will pocket it and then go and see the regulator to get a much better one, because they do not think it will be good enough. I genuinely think that is the reason that a deal has not been done so far.
Ian Byrne
Q
The Chair
I ask the witnesses to send their responses in writing, as I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
The Chair
We will now hear from David Newton of the Football Association. We have until 3.50 pm for this session. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
David Newton: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee this afternoon. My name is David Newton. I am head of football operations in the FA’s structure, with responsibility for player-related matters, competitions and professional game relations.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
David Newton: The state of the game report will be a valuable asset to us as a sport, because it will draw on the widespread aspects of football, not just the narrow responsibility of the regulator, so it will reflect the whole football pyramid. As you know, the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football. It is important that the work of the regulator is set in the context of the wider game. That is where we feel that the report could add value. As previous speakers have alluded to, football is a fast-moving industry, so three years seems about right.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
David Newton: The short answer is no, we do not believe that competition format matters should be an aspect for the regulator to consider. In Dame Tracey’s report summaries, competition format was not part of that, and I think we feel that competition format matters should remain the province of the football authorities, whether that be ourselves or the leagues. There are specific football-related matters that should remain in our ambit, and this is certainly one of those we feel quite strongly about.
Damian Collins
Q
Football clubs are not only licensed by the regulator. They are licensed by the Football Association as well. There are articles of association of the Football Association, which place responsibilities on all clubs. Do you think it would be good and proper due diligence for clubs to have to demonstrate through their corporate governance reporting how they meet all their obligations within football—to the FA, to their players and to the welfare standards they are expected to follow?
David Newton: It is an interesting point. It is not one that we have necessarily considered in detail. I do not see any reason why, in good corporate governance practice, you would not refer to your corporate governance standards with all employees, whether they be players or not. From that perspective, on the face of it, it would seem a reasonable assessment.
Damian Collins
Q
David Newton: I guess it depends what you mean by checking up on the clubs. We have quite a strong structure of engagement with the players: the players’ union, and the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, on which both leagues and we sit with the PFA to discuss on a quarterly basis every aspect of players’ employment by clubs. We would certainly consider that to be the appropriate avenue for those things to be dealt with. I would not necessarily advocate the regulator having formal step-in rights in respect of players as you have outlined, but reporting standards on employees I can see.
Damian Collins
Q
David Newton: I guess it depends on what you mean by good standards. If you are talking about things like national minimum wage or employment rights, then absolutely, those things would be expected. In football, we have our own structures, as you say, for dealing with player-related disputes, or players not being paid—the leagues have very strong rules on that—so those things are dealt with in the structure. Sharing of information with the regulator will obviously be something that may come into focus, once it is up and running, because it is important that there is not duplication of requests for information and that those information requests are shared efficiently.
Mr Betts
Q
David Newton: Absolutely, the FA Cup is an essential part of our football heritage. We reflect that and take the FA Cup extremely seriously. It is a fantastic competition. Everyone cares passionately about it within the FA, me as much as anyone else. Prior to Dame Tracey’s report, we had already established heritage assets in protection of club playing names. Since the report came out, we have also established rules in the FA on club crests and club colours, so we are very aware of heritage responsibilities in that respect.
Mr Betts
Q
David Newton: We are very aware that FA Cup replays are a hugely emotive subject. The FA Cup as a whole is a hugely emotional subject for football fans. We took a decision based on an extremely congested football calendar with which, as has been referred to previously we are very much in the hands of the world and European governing bodies and the fixture list. We took a decision that, in such a congested calendar, certain difficult decisions had to be made. But in doing so, we also preserved other elements of the FA Cup that we think are equally strong things, such as exclusive weekends for the FA Cup, which sends a strong message. A stand-alone Saturday for the FA Cup final and things like that also play into the whole narrative. We are particularly keen for the David and Goliath aspect of the FA Cup to continue. Many historic FA Cup games have been decided on the day, and that will continue.
On the financial side of things, we are very keen to emphasise that no lower league club will lose out as a result of the loss of replays. We would rather see clubs budget sustainably for revenue in the FA Cup on a consistent basis, rather than for the one-off potential replay chance. We realise we cannot budget entirely for hope, and every football fan—I am no different—loves replays in the sense of the hope, but unfortunately difficult decisions have to be made and that is where we have got to.
Mr Betts
Q
David Newton: I do not think that is necessarily a fair characterisation. The fixture calendar is extremely complex. We sit down two years prior to the season with our colleagues at the Football League and the Premier League and discuss how we are going to best fit in the games we have. We are the only major European footballing nation with three domestic cup competitions: the EFL trophy, the Carabao cup and the FA cup. We have 20 teams in the top league and 24 in each of the other three leagues, and the calendar is extremely congested. It is not just as a result of European ties. Each of those is a fantastically vibrant competition in its own right. Each of those competitions has a heritage and importance, and it is about a balance between all those competitions, as well as the European ones, that allows them to be fitted in.
Stuart Andrew
Q
David Newton: It is common knowledge around the room that UEFA and FIFA have statutes of their own, which basically prevent state interference in the running of football and football competitions. We have worked closely with UEFA and FIFA, and with the DCMS staff who have worked so hard on this Bill. They have been taken through where we have got to. Although we have not had a definitive view as such, it is reasonably clear that a tightness of the Bill relating to football governance is not likely to present huge or significant problems, subject to any changes that may occur. However, anything wider would increase the risk of FIFA or UEFA intervention. That is obviously a place we do not want to be, because of the sanctions that may flow, in theory, from that. We continue to work closely with both those bodies and keep them abreast, along with DCMS, of where the Bill has got to, but I think the narrowness of scope is very important.
Matt Rodda
Q
David Newton: The decision has been signed off, effectively, by the FA board for next season. Indeed, the fixture calendar is so full that the spare slots, if you like, have already been allocated. At the moment, there is no review of that position. We are obviously aware of the strength of feeling, and I hope I have gone some way towards explaining how we take that decision. We take the custody of the FA cup extremely seriously.
Matt Rodda
Q
David Newton: In fairness, I do not think the calendar shows any let-up. As has been mentioned, we have a FIFA Club World cup involving 32 teams in the summer next year. That will continue to sit in the calendar, as will the expanded Champions League format, with extra midweek matches. We still operate three domestic cup competitions, which all have to be accommodated as well.
Robin Millar
Q
David Newton: I can completely understand fans’ passion for the FA cup. People who work in football—all of us in football—have that same passion for the FA cup and our other competitions. We have all done those things that you talk about. Competition formats have changed over the last 30 years in a variety of the different competitions in English football that I have referred to, and that has been the way. I guess, as the game evolves and different demands are placed on it, that will continue to happen. As I have explained, the decision taken was based not just on one set of circumstances. There is a huge number of factors relating to the fixture calendar, which is an extremely complex piece of architecture. As I say, the decision was a necessary consequence of that, but, absolutely, we understand the passion and the interest that is involved in the FA cup.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Q
David Newton: Correct.
Rachel Hopkins
Q
David Newton: In club playing names?
Rachel Hopkins
Yes.
David Newton: We introduced the rule about 10 to 15 years ago, and the rule actually gives the FA Council the final approval of a name change to a club in the top tiers of English football. As part of that, we conduct an extensive consultation. Thinking about one in particular, there was a significant amount of consultation with local stakeholders, the local MP, the local fans’ groups concerned, and so on. The decision was voted on by the FA Council, which also has supporter representation on it, so supporters are very much part of the stakeholder community that will consider those changes in names.
Rachel Hopkins
Q
David Newton: As I say, the most recent one or two that I can think of were some time ago and were probably quite well publicised. The consideration of those decisions would have been accompanied by all the relevant submissions made by the various stakeholders and considered in the round, and the weight given to those views.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
David Newton: On the first point, as I outlined at the start of this session, the FA is responsible for the whole of English football, ranging from grassroots right the way up to the international team. The Bill is concentrated, as we know, on a small—but none the less very important—subset of that. Our role as an observer on the board is extremely helpful to that. I am confident that with the work we do—whether that is in grassroots, on and off-field regulation, disciplinary matters, the national teams and that sort of thing—our position as the governing body of English football remains.
Regarding the women’s game, you are absolutely right. We raised the potential concern of the unintended consequences of investment in the women’s game being affected by their co-dependency in some situations on the men’s game, and with funding being removed or reduced as a result of decisions by the regulator. It is important that the regulator, in exercising its powers, does so in a proportionate and reasonable fashion and bears in mind that co-dependency, where it exists.
The Chair
Q
Jane Purdon: I am Jane Purdon. I have worked in football and elite sport for about 22 years, starting as the in-house lawyer at Sunderland football club. I went on to do 10 years at the Premier League, rising to become director of governance. I then went to UK Sport, where I co-authored the code for sports governance. More recently, my work has been with Women in Football. I have just stepped off the board, but I remain an ambassador; I think that means I have the privilege of rocking up to events like this. Thank you for having me. I also have another chair role in football and a quasi-board role with Premiership Rugby, so I now have a portfolio career.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Jane Purdon: Women in Football does not have a corporate view on this, and we do not have a view on the regulator at all. The reason for that is that opinions vary, so I cannot answer for Women in Football. A lot of our focus—we have put in a written submission to the Committee—has been on the effect on the football workforce and the women in it as a result of this legislation.
If I can give you my personal opinion, the Government launched and backed Karen Carney to write a review on the future of women’s football, and it really was a privilege to be an independent expert on that. I am still working with Karen on what is called the implementation group, run under the auspices of the Secretary of State and the Minister.
A lot is going on in women’s football. It is fast evolving and the needs are huge. We need innovation. Not all the solutions that have worked for men’s football will work for women’s football. The Government are—I do not know what the word is—managing the process, or putting the right amount of pressure on the stakeholders, to see where we get to. But at some point, we may need to review those processes, how they are working and whether women’s football is landing in the place where we want it to land. Whether when we get to that point we say, “Gosh, we have a regulator here. The regulator has a role,” I do not know, but it is an open question and one that I think we ought to keep asking.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Jane Purdon: As I say, we have this implementation group run under the auspices of the Secretary of State and DCMS, and there are some real, chunky issues there. Where I am right now with it is allowing that group, which I think is due to meet again in July, to continue its work, but we must keep this under continuous review and not feel complacent that we have sorted women’s football.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Jane Purdon: One of the classic models at the moment, as you have heard, is that the women’s team sits within the same legal entity as the men’s team, and there are pros and cons to that. The pros are obviously that the club has the brand, the IP and the infrastructure. The cons are that it can make the women’s team very vulnerable to what happens in the men’s team. I saw that with my own club, Sunderland, which 20 years ago was so ahead of the game, but the men’s team fell down two divisions. I understand that it is a cost centre and tough decisions must be made, even if they are not the decisions that I would make.
I have actually posited the question before of what happens when women’s football begins to make money and becomes profitable. What are we going to do with that profit, and how much will go back into the men’s game and how much stays in the women’s game? I think that would be a great question for football to debate.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Jane Purdon: There are some statistics and research showing that, I think, 10% of current Premier League directors are women. That research was done earlier this season, but the key thing is that it has not shifted since somebody last looked at it in 2019. The answer, with a very broad brush, is that it would appear not. I have to say that there are some clubs doing fantastic work, some of whom have given evidence today. If you want a great exemplar, take a look at Brentford football club, but as a whole, I do not think the industry is moving fast enough. We need to look at not just boards but executive committees—the lead executive decision-making body within the club.
We speak to our members a lot about this. We have 9,500 members, 80% of whom are women—we do welcome men into our membership—and we talk to them regularly about how they are feeling. We are getting a very mixed picture. We are told that 89% of them feel optimistic about the future of football, but at the same time, again, getting into 80% say that they have experienced sexism in their football careers. A minority of them feel that they are supported to get to the highest path. I would say that things are changing but not quickly enough.
To the second part of your question about what the regulator could do, we have a proposal for a code of governance practice. What concerns us at Women in Football is that both on the face of the legislation and through discussions we have had with the Government in our lobbying activity leading up to this point, there is an indication that it will not include any provisions about diversity. Having co-written the code for sports governance in 2016—under your maestro-ship, Tracey, if I may say so—and having seen how that really shifted the dial, I am really concerned about this. I think it is a poor vision of corporate governance if you do not address equality and diversity. You are not actually writing something about governance. You are writing something else.
To really shift the dial on this, you need three things. You need to make the business case and win hearts and minds. People need to understand and not be frightened, and realise that there are really sound business reasons for doing this. You need to give them support, but you do need to have a bit of a lever—whether that is a funding consequence or a “comply or explain” consequence and the transparency that comes from that in the case of the UK corporate governance code. That is one thing we would like more assurance on and express reference to in the legislation.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Jane Purdon: This is such a tough question, because that money has to come from somewhere, and what do you cut? Do you cut funding to your academy? It is so tough. The real answer is that we have to get women’s football independently standing on its own feet and turning a dollar in its own right.
Damian Collins
Q
Jane Purdon: I think transparency is a great thing, as is transparency in sport. If you have ever read the code for sports governance, it kind of flows through that. We said to the sport governing bodies who were not as well resourced as many football clubs, “Tell the world what you are doing. Even tell them when you don’t hit your targets and then explain what you are going to do, because it breeds trust.” Against that, we do need to be proportionate and make sure that we are not asking organisations to report for the sake of reporting, and that there is real value that comes from the onerous work that reporting involves.
Damian Collins
Q
Jane Purdon: In the legislation there is provision to say how you are meeting this code of practice. I do not have a problem with that in theory. As with all these things, the devil is in the detail, but I think that is right. I have talked about not making it too onerous, but on the other hand it can be a very simple measure to engender trust, and fan trust as well.
Damian Collins
Q
Jane Purdon: As I say, Women in Football does not have a position on this, so I have to be quite careful. If I am brutally honest, my personal opinion—and this is not shared by all by Women in Football colleagues—is that I am not convinced by the intellectual case for an IFR at all, particularly financially. I would need to be persuaded on that one. Maybe it is something we need to think about going forward in the game, and look at the fact that the two teams, the two set-ups, sit in one legal entity. The plus side is when you have a club like Chelsea or Manchester City, which get it and back its women’s team and provide the spectacle in the women’s game that we are used to seeing in the men’s game, that is fabulous, but there is risk as well. Maybe how we manage that risk is something we need to take forward.
Damian Collins
Q
Jane Purdon: There is a proportionality. One of the other bodies I chair is PGAAC—the Professional Game Academy Audit Company—which is the academy quality assurance body. It is a joint venture between the FA, the Premier League and the EFL, and there is proportionality in what we do. We quality-assure all the academies, and we have just started doing the girls’ game as well. We are not taking what we apply to Manchester City to what we apply to a League Two community organisation that happens to run a girl’s elite training centre. It has to be proportionate and you have to make sure that you are adding value all the way.
In fairness, for full disclosure, I have spoken to people in the women’s game who disagree and say that if this if this is coming in for the men’s game, it ought to come in for the women’s game. I look at things like the owners and officers test, which we have written to the Committee about, because we think there are real problems in the drafting. I think that is going to be incredibly onerous for clubs. If you then put that into the women’s clubs as well, many of them who are running on much lower resources, it is an unintended consequence of bureaucracy to what end.
Robin Millar
Q
Jane Purdon: By the way, hearing where you are from, may I sound a note of congratulations to Wrexham FC? I saw it had an attendance of 9,500 for one of its women’s games—wonderful.
What are the barriers? We need the role models. We have those. Our Lionesses are wonderful. We need infrastructure. We need more, more, more, more, more. It is as simple as that. We need more pitches, we need more people, we need more coaches. I sometimes say to people if you want to know what needs to happen in future, take a walk around your town and count up all the football pitches you come across—the ones down the park, the ones in the school, the ones for the professional football club. Now double that. If we are serious about opening up football to the other half of the population, it will look something like that. So, yes: more, more, more.
There has to be some rate of organic growth in this. We cannot do everything at once. Many of the people looking at this, the people at NewCo, the people at the FA and, in fairness, the Sport Minister, have taken a good interest in this. There is good work happening, but we have a long way to go.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness. We will move on.
The Chair
We will now hear from Robert Sullivan, CEO of the Football Foundation; Niall Couper, CEO of Fair Game; and Simon Orriss, head of legal at Fair Game. We have until 4.40 pm for this session. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Robert Sullivan: I am Robert Sullivan, chief exec to the Football Foundation, an independent charity that has been going for 23 years to fund and transform the state of grassroots football facilities in England. We are funded directly by the Government through Sport England and from redistributions from the Premier League and the FA. We work in each of your communities and across England to improve grass pitches, build new artificial pitches, and change the community stock of clubhouses and changing rooms. We think we make a real social difference across England.
Simon Orriss: My name is Simon Orriss. I am a solicitor specialising in corporate law and sports law. For the last couple of years I have been working with Fair Game, which Niall will speak about in due course, as the head of legal providing general legal support.
Niall Couper: I am Niall Couper, the CEO of Fair Game. I was a former fan-elected member of the Dons Trust, owners of AFC Wimbledon. I was a sports journalist at The Independent for five years and I have published a number of books on football, which you can get on Amazon.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Robert Sullivan: We have communicated and I hope we have been helpful. I think it is generically equivalent across the country, but obviously there are local differences according to specific football needs and socioeconomic conditions in each part of the country.
The state of grassroots facilities has always been one of the biggest strategic challenges facing English football. When the FA conduct its annual survey where it asks grassroots players, coaches and participants the No. 1 thing they would like to improve and change in the game, people always say the state of grassroots pitches. We are in no doubt that the primacy of what we do and the importance of the work and the investment of the Football Foundation is fundamental to the future of English football and how we can improve it all. We recognise that there is a huge amount of work to do. The more we can receive support from all parts of the game and from the Government to do that, the better. We are part of the Carney implementation group. It is worth dwelling on what Jane told you a few moments ago, which is that demand for high-quality pitches across this country is set to double over the next 10 years, because of the rise and growth in women’s and girls’ football. That is a massive challenge and a brilliant opportunity for all of us.
That is why I would like to make a specific point about the Bill and some of the provisions in it. The way in which the backstop is currently drafted as part of this potential legislation places primacy on the funding decision between the Premier League and the EFL. Effectively, that means that the Premier League will not be able to work out its other distributions to other parts of the games until it has confirmed the amount of money it will have to give the EFL through the arbitration and backstop process.
As the head of an organisation whose responsibility is grassroots football, I would say that that is a subjective choice: subjectively, I would choose that the Premier League puts the primacy of funding grassroots facilities—it could be women’s football, or whatever your organisation cares about most—at the front of that queue. I do not want the Football Foundation to wait to receive its funding distribution once other causes have been settled first. I believe that our cause, for some of the reasons we have discussed, is the most important in English football.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Robert Sullivan: I am the chief executive of a charity and my charitable purpose is to raise as many funds as I can to reinvest in grassroots football—all of our funding is welcome. We believe that at the moment we are well funded and well supported by the Premier League, the FA and the Government: I want to stress that. If I may use the term of the day, we are more concerned about the unintended consequence of how the legislation may be written and whether that has a negative impact on what funding may come through to grassroots football from those football bodies once everything else has been worked through.
If I may make a second point about what other changes should be considered, the experience of the Football Foundation and the Premier League Stadium Fund, which we operate on behalf of the Premier League to invest in national league system grounds—and I know a lot of you have national league system grounds in your constituencies—is that investing in facilities, in sustainable assets for clubs, is really important. I would be concerned that money that is passed without requirements to put that money into sustainable facilities that can generate future investment and support future revenues, and instead is just passed over as cash to be spent on running the clubs, without those requirements, would be a missed opportunity to send some of the wealth at the top of the game to the things that will make the game sustainable for the future.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Robert Sullivan: As I tried to highlight, if the backstop makes the funding of the EFL the primary budgeting step of the Premier League—all other distributions are whatever is left—that is a subjective choice, which may not be meant by everybody in Parliament. Every single Member of Parliament has lots of grassroots community football clubs. Not all of them have an EFL club which they need to support. There is a choice about what is more important. What is the first choice of where the distribution of Premier League money goes—is it to the grassroots or is it to the EFL pyramid? They are both very valid causes. I represent an organisation which is here to represent the voice of grassroots football.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
You have been campaigning for a long time on many of the matters that are addressed in the Bill. As a way of giving a view, are you pleased overall with the independent regulator that is proposed in the Bill, and do you have broader comments to add?
Niall Couper: There are a few things that are missing. When we look at the financial flow within football, the difference is dramatic. We have done studies, and there is a written submission that I hope the Committee has received. At every single level, those gaps are getting wider. At the moment, the decisions are being made by the Premier League, and to some extent by the EFL as well, and that is not actually benefiting those clubs. It is making it harder, and more of a gambling culture, for every single club throughout the pyramid. That is putting clubs in serious jeopardy.
In the very latest statistics, we are aware that 58% of clubs in the top four divisions are technically insolvent. Brighton and Crystal Palace are both technically insolvent as well—I heard them earlier on. There is a real fundamental issue there.
What we want is to see more of that revenue redistributed down the pyramid. At the moment, for every £1,000 that a club in the Premier League gets in the broadcasting deal, 14p goes to a National League North or South club, or 57p to a National League club. Those differences are dramatic. That is why we really need to look at it.
I go on to what the Football Foundation is saying. We want to see the money invested in the right way. We want to encourage and incentivise well-run clubs. We want to see sustainability. That means investing in infrastructure. It means making grounds a 24/7 operation and making them the hubs of the communities that we all want, with the kind of things that we want to see, such as dementia clubs, working groups, walking football and community programmes, which are all are embedded in those local clubs. That is where we should be looking to encourage investment. That is where the investment in lower clubs goes—that is the difference they make.
Combined with what the Football Foundation does, and looking at the parameters of what a Bill should be about, that should be the first thing. When we are looking at a television distribution deal, we need to be thinking about the parameters that deal should be meeting and what it should address, such as closing the gaps that are causing insolvencies and heartache.
When a club goes into administration, we all know the consequences. That is the loss of your local plumber, caterer or whatever. They are the ones that lose when a club goes into administration. It is not some harmless thing. This was talked about earlier on. If it is liquidated, yes, it goes, but if it goes into administration, there is a lot of pain that goes with that. Those things need to be addressed. If we have the correct parameters to define a distribution deal, the hard-working community clubs can thrive and the grassroots can thrive. That is ultimately what we want to see. That is the growth of the game.
You talked about girls’ football. I have got two girls who play football. The issue of pitches that you talked about is a big problem. A lot of the local big National League and National League North and South clubs really want to invest in that as well and give that, but the money is not there. They are struggling to survive day to day. They live hand to mouth. Those are the clubs that fold. Those are the clubs that disappear, because they are not in the public eye.
In the broadest sense, for all the politicians around the table, those are the clubs that we should really be looking to cater for. That is what the Bill can look at: changing the parameters of what it looks like in distribution.
Stephanie Peacock
Q
Niall Couper: You probably spoke to a couple this morning. I saw the panels and I am aware of some of those people. You have an issue here. Where does the investment come from? Who are the people making the decisions? Where is the funding coming from for some of these people who will be putting their names forward? We have to look at making sure that people who perhaps work for the Premier League or the EFL, who have been making an awful lot of these decisions, are not allowed to be on those boards, or that those organisations that are majority funded are not on those boards.
It is really difficult. I would like to see a whole load of organisations get independent funding. It would be really beneficial to allow them to have that free voice that football really needs. At the moment, the Premier League is the de facto regulator of football.
Robin Millar
Q
DCMS has done a brilliant job in making sure that money gets out to grassroots clubs. I have seen some in my own constituency, even though that is over the border in north Wales and comes via the Football Association of Wales.
You have just said something that I have written down—every MP has grassroots football clubs in their constituency. Potentially, every single MP here has an interest in voting to see money vired directly to grassroots football.
You make the point about the key transaction between the Premier League and the English Football League. I am curious, however, about how that might happen. Is the structure in place to cope with, suddenly, tens of thousands of projects across the UK? Is the FA—I will use the phrase— fit for use, in terms of distributing and monitoring that? What do you think needs to be done from your end of the telescope?
Robert Sullivan: Let me pick through that carefully. The way in which projects are identified to invest in grassroots football is done by the Football Foundation, who fund us alongside the Government and the Premier League. In Wales, their money goes straight into the FAW, who have set up their own equivalent of the Football Foundation. Without passing comment on whether the FA were fit to do it, which I am sure they would have been, they tasked us with doing it.
I am delighted to say that we worked really hard to build what we call a local football facility plan for every local authority in the country. If any of you go on our website—I am seeing some nods; it is good that you know about your local football facility plans—there is effectively a shopping list of all the projects that we want to do in every part of England. We have built a team and we are building in the investment from our partners to go out there and deliver those projects.
Robin Millar
Q
Robert Sullivan: Yes, because it would 100% be my job to build the operation or structure to do that. To give you some comfort that we can do that, we have basically doubled what we have done in the last three years. If the Minister responsible for the future investment of any Government of any colour said to me, “You need to double it again,” that is what we would set out to do.
Robin Millar
Q
Niall Couper: I am very much in favour of more investment going through to the Football Foundation. If we are looking at a body that could potentially help to deliver that infrastructure and that way of doing it and ensure that clubs are investing in the right ways, which I am also in favour of, it is a good thing. We need to look at those lower levels of football and how that comes in. It goes back to that parameter question. When you look at how a distribution deal is decided, having an independent regulator to say, “These are the parameters that that deal must reach” is where you can see a real, fundamental difference.
When we look at the Football Foundation, I think you get 2.5% of the £3.19 billion that is there. What would happen if that was 5%? How many extra pitches would there be? What extra stadiums would we see? There are crumbling stadiums that are outside the Premier League. The extra facilities that could be changed and used for all the community clubs and community assets there, to use a very good Conservative phrase, is levelling up. That is what you could see in all those grounds and areas. That is what you could do, but it comes about only if the parameters of that distribution deal are robust enough and set by the regulator to deliver the change that is needed.
Robert Sullivan: I want to put it on the record that the Premier League has been far and away the most supportive and consistent funder over the 24-year period of the Football Foundation, and it is really important to say that. I am not sat here in any way saying that we do not feel well-supported by the Premier League.
Robin Millar
If I ask more questions, the Whip will start getting nervous about amendments that I might want to lay down. I will just say that every community has churches, pubs and football clubs, and there is a good reason for asking these questions.
Rachel Hopkins
Q
Niall Couper: When we look at that area, when Tracey Crouch wrote that original fan-led review it was one of the key recommendations. When you go to our clubs and look at them, the clubs that thrive and are actually forward thinking are the ones where you see that diversity put into the boardrooms and staffing structures, and where they actually try to address it.
It is a travesty of justice when you look at a football ground at a men’s match and it is 80% male. When you go into the club’s shop, nearly all the merchandise is for men. When you look at the toilet facilities, they are pretty poor for women. All those things are naive both financially and in terms of actual gender representation, and those are the things that need to change. The clubs that we have in Fair Game, which are across the pyramid, are the ones that are more forward thinking and realise that actually we cannot live in the dark ages.
A proper code of governance needs to have EDI embedded in it. It needs to be part of the way forward and part of how we look at football holistically, and that has not been the case. Having been a board member of a football club and sat there, there have been far too many instances where unfortunately it has been an awful lot of people looking an awful lot like me being the entire representation. That is not really appealing to wider society. If we want football to grow and thrive, ignoring vast sections of society is completely remiss.
Rachel Hopkins
Q
Niall Couper: When you look at it, there are a couple of things that clearly can be part of the Bill, such as the governance code. When you look at the governance code, that needs to include EDI representation, as you would see in nearly all other sports governance codes that exist. That is an obvious place. The other thing is the state of the game report, and I think we need to look at having proper benchmarking and seeing where we can improve. Fair Game has looked at a lot of this—we have done a lot of stuff on the gender divide and we are doing a lot of research on that—but we need to look at this issue as constantly going forward and improving. We cannot perform just tick-box exercises; it needs to be about developing real outcomes so that women and people from ethnic groups can feel safe within a football ground, and that is not the case.
On a side point, we have been doing some work on the women’s game and there is a significant difference in how that operates compared with the men’s game. The issue we have seen is that women are not feeling safe, and that is an area that we really need to address. Until we get to that position, we will have loads of steps and things we need to improve. Every single element in the Bill needs to address that and ensure that that goes forward and improves what we have. Going back to the Bill, I would say that 90% of it is pretty good, but there are bits that can be improved, and that is definitely one area that can be.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Q
Simon Orriss: I don’t think it has. I have discussed it with a couple of colleagues—barristers and other people that I know in the profession—and the general consensus is that it is unlikely that some of the FIFA statute articles that prevent Government interference in the governance of the game would be enacted. In particular, we have looked at institutions in France and Spain, which don’t have a completely identical remit to what the IFR is proposed to do, but they have some role in regulating the sport in those countries, and FIFA has largely left them to that. Although it has been noted, as you have just done in your question, it has not been something that has got people terribly agitated.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Robert Sullivan: To be honest, I am not sure yet. I would be cautious about passing a judgment on that. If you pull back a level, what does the Football Foundation need? It needs two things really: it needs a very healthy and thriving elite end of the game that generates lots of excessive revenues that can be distributed back into the grassroots; and it needs the grassroots of the game to be excited, growing and wanting to have lots of kids getting out there and playing. To answer in a very broad sense, if the regulator is allowing that ecosystem of English football to continue to thrive—not only at the top end with more sustainability, and all the things that people talked about today, but with the game still generating crazy passion and demand from kids getting out there— that is brilliant for English football and the Football Foundation. There are going to be lots of people needing great pitches, and we are going to get out there and give everyone a great place to play.
Matt Rodda
Q
Niall Couper: I think there are gaps. We heard of one earlier, about the club heritage and the name. To my mind, these are simple amendments. Making sure that there is a proper fan consultation about a proposed name change is, to me, important. You strike on a cause that is close to my heart—I am an AFC Wimbledon fan. Today, 14 May, is a significant day for me: in 2002, the three-man FA commission began its deliberations about moving the club to Milton Keynes. I have had loads of messages about that—they all knew I was coming here—and for me, making sure that a club cannot move from its area is fundamental.
At the moment, that is not clear enough in the Bill, and I think it needs to be made fundamentally clear. It talks about financial considerations still being part of the conversation. As a Wimbledon fan, it was the financial considerations of a three-man commission that allowed us to lose the club. We would describe it as our place in the Football League being given to a town in Buckinghamshire. Effectively, that is what happened. For any other club, that needs to be addressed, and fans need to have their voice heard first in that particular conversation. At the moment—I will use this phrase, although I was trying desperately not to say it—the unintended consequence of the Bill is that it legitimises franchising. That is the bit that needs a red line put through it.
Matt Rodda
Q
Robert Sullivan: It is a huge challenge for the game, but we are definitely on an upward trend. For the first time, we have been able properly to map and record, and to improve grass-pitch quality by use of digital data. That has been a big change, because with 30,000 grass pitches in England, it is hard to get out to reach them all, but we can now use technology through phones, so we can assess those pitches remotely and help clubs to improve them, to do the simple things, and give them funding that can address some of the waterlogging situations.
We now have more than 8,000 of what we have rated as good-quality grass pitches. That is a big step forward on where we were five or 10 years ago, but we are perhaps only halfway through that journey. We are going to do everything we can to escalate that number as quickly as we can, and to build many more artificial grass pitches, because of the difference. On a good grass pitch that does not waterlog, we get maybe six hours of play; and on a good artificial pitch, we can get 60 hours of full-on community usage for kids, disability or vulnerable groups, older men who are coming for dementia classes, and whatever it might be. Those artificial grass pitches, which is what we want to invest in, are the game changers that will help us to support that growth in the women and girls’ game and all other parts of grassroots football.
Dame Tracey Crouch
Q
Niall Couper: Yes is the answer. I think it is something that we need to look at, considering that—in my mind—a lot of it depends on what happens with this Bill. It is important, because it is about redistribution and giving support to a lot of the clubs that are trying to do the right thing in the right way. Again, to go back, it needs to be caveated to make sure that it is ringfenced where possible to support the grassroots pitches.
I talk to clubs like Tonbridge Angels, Maidstone United, Sutton United and so on. Those clubs will talk about wanting to have the 3G pitches and their training pitches in there so that they can be put to community use—those 60 hours a week. That is really what they want, because that is where they see the big growth. That is where your club becomes a community hub. That is where it makes the difference.
For me, the money that you talk about from the transfer levy, if you give it to those sorts of pitches and so on, is where you can make a real fundamental difference. Where it will go, I do not know, Tracey. It is one perhaps that we can talk about once we are post the Bill. It was something that I was really excited about when you proposed it—it really appealed to me. It is something that came a bit from left field, but it is something that we should look at in the months and years ahead.
Ian Byrne
Q
Robert Sullivan: It is a big challenge, Ian. When we fund a site, we will put in terms and conditions on such sites that should provide a check and a challenge on the affordability. So, if that is happening on a site that we have funded, we should pick that conversation up separately, because when we provide a grant, it comes with terms and conditions: we need to see, basically, an income and expenditure plan that has sensible and appropriate pricing policies with it.
If I may go back to pick up on Tracey’s offer—
Dame Tracey Crouch
For the money—
Robert Sullivan: For the money. I am agnostic about where the money comes from, but we have a massive challenge, and we need as much as possible going into grassroots facilities.
To make one supplementary point about what Niall said, he alighted on a really interesting example. Sutton had a fantastic 3G pitch that was doing brilliant community things, but when Sutton went into the EFL, it had to pull that pitch up. That is an interesting question, although it is inadvertent. I understand all the competition reasons why that might be the case in the EFL, but Sutton went from having a very sustainable community asset to one that was not when it moved up into the EFL pyramid. That is an issue that I would potentially raise as well.
The Chair
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much for coming.
Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)
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
Smartphones and Social Media: Children
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of smartphones and social media on children.
In this country, we often take the physical safety of our children for granted, but imagine if our streets were so lawless that it was unsafe for children to leave their homes. Imagine if, on their daily walk to school, our children had to witness the beheading of strangers or the violent rape of women and girls. Imagine if, when hanging out in the local park, it was normal for hundreds of people to accost our child and encourage them to take their own life. Imagine if it was a daily occurrence for our children to be propositioned for sex or blackmailed into stripping for strangers. Imagine if every mistake that our child made was advertised on public billboards, so that everyone could laugh and mock until the shame made life not worth living. This is not a horror movie or some imaginary wild west; this is the digital world that our children occupy, often for hours a day.
Our kids are not okay. Since 2012, suicide rates for teenage boys in the UK have doubled. They have trebled for girls. Incidents of self-harm for 10 to 12-year-old girls have increased by 364%. Anxiety rates for the under-25s have trebled. Feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, loneliness and despair are growing among our youngest citizens. In just 15 years, childhood has been turned on its head.
These trends are not unique to the UK; they are happening across the western world and particularly in Anglophone and Nordic countries. In the first decade of this century, life was generally improving for children across the developed world. Educational attainment was rising, and depression and anxiety were stable or falling. But something happened in 2010 to change the direction of travel, and then from 2014, the decline accelerated rapidly. Whether we look at data for suicide, self-harm, gender confusion or anxiety, or at education scores across the western world, all these trends showed an inflection point in 2010 and a sharp rise from 2014. So, what happened in 2010 and 2014 to so seriously undermine children’s welfare?
As the US psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt has charted in his recent book, “The Anxious Generation”, there is now overwhelming evidence that all these tragic trends have been caused by the rise of smartphones and social media. The iPhone with a front-facing camera was introduced in 2010, and by around 2014, smartphones and social media had become ubiquitous for children. These products were never tested on children or certified as safe for children, yet 97% of British teens now own a smartphone and half of nine-year-olds use social media. In the US, the average 11 to 14-year-old spends nine hours a day online.
Smartphones and social media affect boys and girls differently. Some platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, have particularly negative effects for girls. These apps exploit natural female tendencies for visual social comparison, but instead of just comparing themselves with classmates, girls are now judged by millions of others against often fake images of what the female body should look like. Where boys are more prone to physical aggression, girls are more likely to employ relational aggression. It is bad enough to be on the receiving end of bullying in the school playground, but when friends and strangers can send hate-filled messages at any hour of the day or night, it is unsurprising that the wellbeing of girls in particular has collapsed as a result of social media.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend, and everybody who works with her, on the amazing work that she has done? It is a remarkable achievement, and I want to thank everybody who is associated with it. I am also grateful for what was done on the Bill that became the Online Safety Act 2023, which actually provides for imprisonment for tech bosses who wilfully make mistakes and deals with the situation in the way in which my hon. Friend and I have tried to solve the problem. I congratulate her.
Miriam Cates
I deeply thank my hon. Friend and I will come later in my speech to some of the improvements that he himself made to the Online Safety Bill.
As well as being more susceptible to visual social comparison, girls are more susceptible to sociogenic transmission or what we might call social contagion, which explains the acute impact of trans ideology on girls. We have seen a 5,000% rise in referrals of girls to gender clinics. Girls are also, of course, more subject to sexual predation and harassment, with younger and younger girls being coaxed or threatened into sending intimate images and even filming their own sexual abuse. In 2022 the Internet Watch Foundation found 141,000 child sexual abuse images of 11 to 13-year-olds, the vast majority of which were self-generated. The front-facing smartphone camera provides the world with an open door to our little girls in their bedrooms.
Boys are less affected by visual and social comparison, but where social media destroys the self-confidence of teenage girls, gaming and porn rewire the brains of adolescent boys. Having 24-hour access to pornography superficially satisfies the sexual desires of young men, but it leaves them isolated, lacking in relationship skills and, tragically, searching for more and more extreme material to become aroused. The average age for encountering online pornography, much of which is violent, degrading and deeply disturbing, is 13 years old, just when boys are forming their expectations about sex. Nearly half of young people now believe that girls expect sex to involve violence.
Multiplayer video games hack into boys’ competitiveness and physical aggression. Again, the games superficially fulfil natural male desires, but they leave boys lonely, withdrawn from the real world, lacking in real skills and unable to find enjoyment or stimulation away from the screen. For boys and girls, time spent on social media represents an enormous opportunity cost. Hours of doomscrolling are hours not spent gaining physical and relational experiences that will equip them with the resilience they need for real life. We have substituted a phone-based childhood for a play-based childhood with tragic consequences.
Even our schools do not provide a safe haven. Recent research by Policy Exchange found that only 11% of secondary schools have an effective phone ban, with the overwhelming majority of children still able to access their devices at school. Interestingly, the schools that had implemented an effective ban were significantly more likely to be rated outstanding by Ofsted and achieved on average one or two grades higher at GCSE, despite being more typically in deprived areas.
Forty-three per cent of older teenagers say social media has distracted them from school work enough to impact their grades. One child told a Parentkind survey:
“I can't focus on my school homework because every 5 minutes I get distracted and go back onto my phone. Occasionally, I’ll see triggering content on social media such as suicide or gory images.”
Social media offers constant, instant gratification, with a dopamine hit and a new distraction every few seconds. Is it any wonder that children are less and less able to concentrate and focus on the intellectually demanding task of academic learning? For the first time ever, IQ is falling across the western world. Programme for international student assessment data shows that maths, reading and science scores have all declined since 2014.
Some question the causal relationship between social media and smartphones and the decline in adolescent wellbeing. Many blame the financial crash in 2008. But why would those trends affect only the under-25s? Some blame the UK Conservative Government, but how can localised economic, political or social conditions account for the collapse in childhood wellbeing across the western world all at the same time?
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate and on the excellent speech that she is making. She talks about the scorching number of hours that children and young people are online and the very high percentage who engage in the virtual world rather than the physical world. But there is one group of children who are shielded or protected from the influences that she describes: the children of tech moguls and those who work in the industry. Does she think that that is very telling and, in equal measure, absolutely damning?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is right. It is hugely significant that those who really know how these apps and algorithms work firmly believe that they are not safe for children. When asked if the iPad was addictive, Steve Jobs famously remarked that he assumed so because he had designed it to be so.
On the causal links between social media and smartphones and the decline in childhood wellbeing, Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge present compelling causative evidence of the harms of social media. On his Substack, Haidt describes six experiments that found that when social life moves rapidly online, mental health declines, especially for girls. Not one study failed to find a harmful effect. It is now impossible to deny the devastating impact that smartphones and social media have on our children. Some say that it is a parenting problem and that parents need to pay more attention to their children’s phone use. But in a survey of older teenagers, half said they had found ways to bypass parental controls.
It is not just screen time that is so difficult for parents or children to manage; it is all but impossible to control the content to which children are exposed. As whistleblowers Arturo Béjar and Frances Haugen have testified, social media companies knowingly use algorithms to feed children harmful and addictive content.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and bringing us together to discuss this important topic. Going back to the problems that parents have, if their child is the only kid in the class who does not have a smartphone, the parent will suffer the peer pressure we are trying to protect children from. Does she see a way round that?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is right. There is a problem of collective action: the costs of being the only child or the only parent without that phone are too high—far too high for ordinary parents to resist. I will come to what I see as some of the solutions later, but he is absolutely right to highlight that issue.
Even if the material being viewed is benign, smartphones and social media are highly addictive and provide a constant off-ramp to our mental focus and erode our concentration. I wonder how many hon. Members in the past 11 minutes have thought about or looked at their phone; I certainly have. As I said, when Steve Jobs was asked in 2011 if the iPad might be addictive, he remarked that he had designed it to be so.
We know as adults how difficult it is to control our own phone use, but the average child gets 237 notifications a day. That is a concentration-busting, addiction-fuelling dopamine hit every four seconds of waking time. If there were no laws against the sale of tobacco, drugs or alcohol to children, we would not expect parents to be able to defend their children from the might of big pharma or big tobacco, yet somehow we do expect ordinary parents to be able to protect their children from the vested interests of the likes of Meta, TikTok, X and Apple, the wealthiest and most powerful countries—sorry, companies—the world has ever seen. In fact, they are more powerful than most countries. Apple has $3 trillion in the bank, which is as much as our GDP, so they are more powerful than many countries.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) remarked, parents could refuse to give their child a smartphone, but the fact that 97% of teens and half of nine-year-olds have one gives an indication of the extreme pressure and social isolation experienced by the only child in a school or class without a phone. We surely cannot believe that 97% of parents are bad parents.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. Does she agree that we could do the following three things? We could ban smartphones in schools, ban social media up to the age of 16 and, as adults, take personal responsibility, which I believe Conservative MPs do better than anybody else. Thus, when we are with our children, we should keep off phones, or at least spend an hour a day when we are not on our phones and can set an example to the next generation coming through.
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is completely right, of course. Studying this topic has made me think more carefully about my phone use. Seeing some of the apps that try to disrupt my concentration as big companies trying to take my time is a helpful way to look at it. As with alcohol, drugs and all sorts of other things, we need to recognise that there is a difference between adults and children. Adults should have free choice about how they use their time; this is about protecting children.
Whatever the solutions, this cannot go on. The problems associated with heavy screen use are presenting younger and younger. A fifth of three and four-year-olds now have their own smartphones. A study last year published in the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA Pediatrics found that more screen time for children aged one is associated with developmental delays in communication at ages two and four. It is little wonder that more and more children are starting primary school unable to communicate, with behavioural and emotional difficulties. This year, a quarter of school starters were still in nappies.
The economic cost of this assault on childhood will be devastating. We have record numbers of young people signed off work with anxiety. Waiting times for child mental health services are measured in years. Our economy and welfare state simply cannot afford to support mass worklessness among the young. There are huge geopolitical risks, too. We spend billions of pounds a year on defence and yet, through the Chinese-owned TikTok, we allow our political enemies direct access to our children in their bedrooms.
In China, under-14s are limited to 40 minutes a day on TikTok, and endless doomscrolling is interrupted by five-second delays. Chinese children are shown only specially selected and inspiring scientific, educational and historical content, but in the US and UK, TikTok feeds our teens stupid dance videos, hyper-sexualised content and political propaganda. TikTok is now the most favoured single source of news among British teens. Our emerging generation is being educated through indoctrination by foreign-owned social media, and the education is often anti-democratic, anti-western and anti-truth. Our enemies are rubbing their hands in glee.
Many people in Britain look to the Online Safety Act to address these enormous issues, and when fully implemented the Act will bring some improvements. It should make it more difficult for children under 13 to gain access to social media, and make it less likely that children encounter the most harmful content. However, even if Ofcom can hold tech companies to account in making the protections highly effective, children will still have free access to social media platforms from the age of 13. Though welcome, the Online Safety Act will not rescue our children.
But the tide is turning. There is hope that the world is waking up to the enormous damage that smartphones and social media are doing to childhood. Governments across the world are taking action. In the US, Florida has banned social media for under-14s, New York has proposed legislation to ban addictive algorithms for children, and Congress is taking action against TikTok. New French Government guidance says that social media should not be accessible to under-18s, and President Macron has spoken eloquently about the need for an age of digital adulthood. In a speech just yesterday, our own Prime Minister raised concerns about children being exposed to bullying, sexualised content and even self-harm online.
Here in the UK, the parents of Molly Russell, Brianna Ghey and Mia Janin, who tragically lost their lives to social media, have bravely spoken about the need to act. Campaign groups such as Smartphone Free Childhood, Delay Smartphones and Safe Screens are organising despairing parents en masse, and calling for collective as well as Government action to preserve childhood. All of them are calling for children under 16 to be freed from a phone-based childhood.
The polling on the issue is decisive. Last week, The Sunday Times published polling by More in Common that showed that seven in 10 Brits think social media is having a negative impact on children, and seven in 10 support banning social media companies from allowing accounts for anyone under 18. Polling from Parentkind produced similar results: it found that 77% of primary school parents back a ban on smartphones for under-16s, and 74% of older teenagers themselves believe that social media is harmful.
Some in Westminster think that using regulation and legislation to protect children from smartphones and social media is an overreaction, or even an un-Conservative thing to do, yet in the country as a whole Conservative voters are the most likely to support strong action: 72% of Tory voters are in favour of a ban on the sale of smartphones to children, compared with 61% of Labour voters. Perhaps the only Conservatives who do not support such measures are those in SW1. The evidence is unequivocal: smartphones and social media are making our children sadder, sicker and more stupid. It is just not good enough to shrug our shoulders and fall back on tired clichés like “The horse has bolted” or “The genie is out of the bottle”. The demand for Government action is clear and growing.
What can be done? First, we must insist that tech companies use highly effective age-verification tools, so that no under-age children have access to social media or pornography. Secondly, we must raise the legal age to use social media accounts to 16. That could be done with a Bill amending the Online Safety Act. Thirdly, the Government should urgently fund phone pouches or lockers for all secondary schools, so that all our children can be free to make the most of their education.
Fourthly, we must tackle the scourge of internet pornography. If platforms such as Twitter, which is the platform on which children most commonly encounter porn, cannot keep porn off their sites, they must be forced to ban under-18s from their platforms, and we must update the law so that all sorts of content that are completely illegal in offline pornography—non-consensual sex; violent, degrading and dangerous acts; and the appearance of minors—are illegal online too. There is no excuse for the lack of parity between online and offline porn. Indeed, 56% of the British public would like to ban online porn entirely.
Fifthly, we need a public health campaign to explain to parents of small children that smartphones and internet devices are not safe for babies and toddlers, and that screen use can cause irreversible damage and developmental delays. Sixthly, just as we have incentivised the research and development of new technologies in other fields, such as energy and agriculture, we should incentivise the development of a new phone that is suitable for children—one that allows one-to-one messaging, phone calls, satellite maps and utility apps, such as online banking, but that has no internet browser or ability to install apps. Seventhly, we should ban TikTok from operating in the UK.
I am not for a moment saying that we should not teach children how to use the internet safely on a computer, or that there are not huge advantages to smartphone technology. I, for one, would be lost—literally—without Google Maps. Yet the internet should be a tool to enhance our lives, not a means through which children can become addicted and be exploited. We should therefore not make the mistake of believing that all new technologies represent progress.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the tech companies will fight all the reforms. Just like the tobacco industry before them, big tech’s business model relies on getting children hooked on their products to provide a lifelong revenue stream. However, it is not only the tech industry that will oppose banning social media for children. There are many well-meaning people, organisations and children’s charities that will argue that social media has benefits for children, particularly vulnerable children such as those who are neurodiverse, have mental health problems or are LGB or gender-questioning. That is a desperately naive position because the more vulnerable the child, the more at risk they are online. If hon. Members do not believe me, they should try creating a TikTok, Discord or Reddit account in the name of a teenager with one of those issues and they will find their feed filled with porn, predators or pro-anorexia content, all to draw the most vulnerable children into a world where they are utterly defenceless.
So many children’s testimonies speak of a stolen childhood. As one girl told Parentkind,
“The other day I was on Instagram. Some random guy started saying I looked like a fat pig and no one likes me. When I tried to get past that I saw a short where a girl looked really skinny and spoke of body goals. I felt so useless and ugly that I cried myself to sleep.”
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The mental health impacts are quite well known, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see academia, the NHS and health professionals looking more at the physical implications for the body? We know about the sleep disturbances, but what about the physical implications?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is right that much more research is needed on the wider impacts. I believe a study was published just yesterday about the correlation between using a phone while eating and obesity, for example. There are a whole range of different issues that we could explore and I highly recommend Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Anxious Generation”, for a thorough exploration of all the global trends in the area under focus.
Defending children from this wild west is not the action of a nanny state; it is a moral imperative for Governments across the world. In the past, Britain has had a strong record when it comes to child protection legislation. There have been a number of moments in our history when a new danger to children has emerged, public outcry has ensued and Parliament has been called upon to act. In 1838, the Huskar pit disaster in my constituency led to the passing of the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, prohibiting the employment of children in mines. In 1885, after public outcry over young girls being sold into prostitution, this House raised the age of sexual consent to 16. Again, following public outcry over the sale of alcohol to children, in 1901, Parliament restricted its sale to under-16s.
We are now at a similar moment in history. We will look back and ask why we allowed paedophiles, predators, greedy capitalists and foreign enemies unfettered access to our children online. The evidence of harm is irrefutable and the public outcry is growing. Now is the time to act. The Government have less than a year left in office, but if we could pass the Coronavirus Act 2020 in just one day, surely we can use these next few months to introduce effective legislation to protect children from a real and present danger. Indeed, is there any better reason to be in government than to have the opportunity and the power to rescue the next generation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. In view of the number of people who want to speak and the pressure on time, I am afraid I have no alternative but to impose a four-minute time limit on speeches, which I will strictly enforce.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on her outstanding speech and her commitment to this hugely important issue, which should concern anyone involved in the care or parenting of young people.
The briefing we were provided with for the debate highlighted a few statistics that I will draw attention to before I move on to the substance of my points. Ninety-nine per cent of children spend time online, 90% of children own a mobile phone, and three quarters of social media users aged between eight and 17 have their own account or profile on at least one of the large platforms. Those stats show how ubiquitous it is for young people to be able to access various different sites.
The question is not whether it is good for young people to have the latest gadget, to keep up with their peers and have the social cachet that goes with having a nice smartphone. What that smartphone represents is a portal into a different world. When I was a youngster, it was easy for young people to buy cigarettes and to go into a pub and get booze across the counter, even when they were obviously under age. That would never happen now, because we have made significant changes that limit the sale of harmful products to youngsters. The world online, which these phones are a portal to, is so unregulated that it is the wild west—a point that has already been made. The internet is the wild west.
I will draw attention to a few brief stories to illustrate that. Last week I read a post on Twitter from a father whose 13-year-old boy was part of a WhatsApp group, along with friends from school and friends of friends; the father discovered that on that group they were circulating images of people being beheaded. Later, he discovered another post from a friend of a friend, in which people had put together a compilation of images of people who had livestreamed their suicide by gun. That was circulated in a group of 13-year-old boys. He also drew attention to sites that encourage suicide among young men.
Many issues need to be addressed, but the ability to communicate disturbing images, and young people’s ability to access them, is the most concerning. I would highlight that when someone installs a game for their child, thinking it is innocuous, they may overlook the fact that most of those games have chat functions—they have a chatroom hidden away behind the game. Within that chatroom can be found predators, extortionists and many other people with nefarious purposes. It is so important that we have proper regulation, and that we dismantle the tools with which those nefarious people are able to access young people. I fully support the work of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Sir George. Like other colleagues, I add my extreme thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who set out the case for change and, what’s more, advanced some practical suggestions, legislative and other, for how we go about achieving that change. I will therefore not focus my remarks on that but instead reflect on my personal experience and perhaps add another dimension.
I am a mother of four and a grandmother to two—a two-and-a-half-year-old and a baby. When my children were growing up, I had my own battles with the internet as it was at the time, and with the phones that they had. I had my battle with video games and all the other things they were involved in, both at school and home. It was extremely tough to have those battles with your children and draw the line between what is educational, what is dangerous and what is addictive. But the world has changed so much since then and we are in a new world. Some people watching the debate may say that it is about parental responsibility and that parents are failing their children and need to do more; I say to them that that misses a big part of the picture.
I accept that we need to ask parents to step up. Whatever we do as a Government, we will still require parents to take responsibility. Parents cannot outsource everything to the Government. We as Conservatives must be bold enough to say to parents, “Look, we have brought in these protections, but if you are trying to get round them by just giving your own phone to your child, of course you are going to have a harmful impact on them.” We need to tell them to take responsibility, but there is a clear moral case for us to act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge set out. I am the first to believe in freedom, but I think we all agree that this is not freedom. We are actually removing freedom from children and parents.
I will focus on two other points, because I am aware that time is short. I have been made aware of a fantastic organisation called Smartphone Free Childhood, which I understand is now setting up groups all around the country. I pay tribute to its work, and I am interested to hear from people locally who are involved in it at the grassroots level. I want to hear from parents, families and young people in my constituency of Redditch. I am interested to hear about their experiences on the ground. Do they think the existing protection of banning phones in schools goes far enough? What is their experience in their own classrooms, families and, most importantly, peer groups? Are the protections working? Do I need to get involved? Can I help in any way on the ground at the grassroots level?
I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of one more point. I know that he is not the Minister responsible for this policy area, but perhaps he could speak to his colleagues; I will certainly be doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned the impact of very early mobile phone use on emotional, social and cognitive development. In this country we also have a concerning rise in the numbers of children in the special educational needs and disabilities category—children with special needs, developmental delays, complex cognitive, emotional and behavioural problems, and autism spectrum disorders. It is a huge area. We are seeing a rise in those conditions, and they require specialist provision from local authorities. I know there is huge pressure on local authorities to provide places for children. I am interested to know what research, if any, has been done to link mobile phone and social media use to the rise in those conditions in our children, young people and even young adults, because some of the conditions—
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is good to see you in your place, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on a good introduction to a complex, pressing policy area. This is not an academic exercise: these issues have real-world consequences for real families.
In Dunblane in Stirling, recently we saw the terrible case of Murray Dowey. Murray was a bright, happy 16-year-old. He was football daft, and Stirling Albion was his team. He was well liked and popular. He took his own life after being a victim of sextortion via his Instagram account. Sextortion is a horrible word for a horrible thing, but we must make young people in particular more aware of it because the risks are real and clear. I am speaking today at the request of Murray’s parents, Ros and Mark Dowey, who have been through hell. They want action. They have remained incredibly dignified and brave throughout their ongoing ordeal, but they want to see action. There is a lot of unanimous thinking across the Chamber that we need to do more on this topic. We have not done nothing, but we need to do more than we have done.
Alyn Smith
I will not. I need to make progress.
I have been contacted by hundreds of parents across Stirling who likewise want to see action. It is up to us to decide what that action needs to be, but being aware that we need to do more is a good place to start.
On the petition, I am less convinced that banning smartphone access for under-16s would be effective— I think it could encourage a backlash and it would be very difficult to enforce and regulate—but I am drawn to the idea of restricting smartphone access in schools as a sensible thing to do. I should declare an interest: my husband is a secondary school teacher, and he talks about the impact on youngsters in terms of distraction and mental health, particularly in a school environment day in, day out. I stress that I am pro-technology—children should have access to the incredible technological advancements under way—but it is not safe. Car manufacturers fit seatbelts and catalytic converters to make their products safer or less noxious, at our insistence. The tech companies need to do the same.
I am concerned about the lack of protections implemented by the tech companies and the lack of effective regulation. Our regulators do not seem to have many teeth, or at least did not until recently. I am also concerned that police and legal enforcement across jurisdictions are nowhere near as joined-up as the tech companies and their products, and I am unconvinced that tech companies co-operate to the extent that they need to when things go wrong.
The online environment is not as safe as it needs to be, and there are things we could do to make it safer. We have heard reference to putting the genie back in the bottle; we need to focus on making the online environment safer, rather than restricting access to smartphones. The Online Safety Act is a good place to start. I was glad to see that, in the last couple of weeks, Ofcom published its consultation proposing robust age checks, safer algorithms and the effective moderation of chat and content. That is a good start, and long overdue, frankly. More needs to be done, and I urge Ofcom on to greater efforts.
In Murray’s case in particular, we saw that law enforcement and judicial co-operation between the police and regulatory authorities across jurisdictions is nowhere near as joined-up as it needs to be. We urgently need to address that. Tech has always moved faster than the law—that is not unusual in and of itself—but the law needs to catch up, because this issue is having real-world consequences for real families in all our communities. I will work with anybody to those ends.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates)—one of Parliament’s finest at this moment in time. I hope we will see her in her place for a long time.
I will focus specifically on phones in schools. Having spent my entire professional career before entering this place as a secondary school teacher—in fact, as a head of year, which meant that I had to deal with young people’s behaviour and attendance—and having been a Minister for School Standards, albeit briefly, I will say loud and clear that it is appalling that, despite the Government having issued continued guidance since 2010 that smartphones are not to be used in schools, only 11% of schools have taken the brave and bold step of enforcing the rule that phones must be put away and not visible or reachable until the end of the school day. That is bizarre when we consider that most of those schools go on to achieve an outstanding rating. Michaela, one of the finest schools in the country, has very strict rules. I implore anyone to visit, as I have done on a number of occasions, to see that when phones are put away, the results are far better than most grammar and private schools in this country, because young people’s attention is on the knowledge-rich curriculum in front of them.
I am quite embarrassed, to be frank, of my former profession. Not enough headteachers have enough backbone to take the fight to parents who may want to push back or to pupils who may want to moan and groan, or simply to fight the aggressive educationalists who seem to think that the phone is somehow a tool for learning in the classroom. They think children should spend their time googling how to mind-map themselves on A3 or A2 bits of paper, without any proper guidance on understanding the processes involved in things, from those as simple as making chocolate to ideas about how democracy was formed. That should come from the expert in the classroom—the teacher—who stands at the front, delivers the knowledge and ensures that young people have the ability to critically respond to different ideas and do not just find information, copy and paste it off their phones and write it on a piece of paper without cognitively taking it in or critically analysing it in the way they should.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns
Look at Parliament: it has pushed for this paperless society, with the Select Committees wanting everything on our tablets. For decades, industry has pushed for it as well. Does my hon. Friend think that has had an impact, and that maybe we should return to using paper again? I myself am addicted—how can we tell our children off when we are addicted ourselves?
Jonathan Gullis
I will keep my comments brief, Sir George, to make sure that I do not impact on others’ time, but I will say that I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I am a dinosaur—I like paper and I like to scribble over things. When I was a teacher, I liked having physical paper to write comments on. I certainly did not want to try to use interesting gadgets to get ideas across. Although there is great technology, like Google Classroom, that can be used effectively, ultimately we should not move away from paper-based exercises, because they are still useful, particularly for handwriting skills, which are so important for young people. Fewer and fewer young people have the chance to practise handwriting, because we have all fallen into the trap of being able to type quickly on our phones.
To sum up, let me say loud and clear that I know the Minister gets this. He has been working tremendously hard on the Online Safety Act and on what can be done to make sure that we enforce the rules that have come through that legislation while also looking at the wider debate around this policy area, but he now needs to go back to the Department for Education and we need to end the era of guidance and make it enforceable and directional from the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out, schools should have the funding for lockers or storage boxes, to make sure that phones are put away and children can enjoy a childhood in the school day without their phone. Believe me, when I was a head of year I was sick and tired of having to deal with parents coming into school to tell me that their child was receiving harmful online bullying content in the evening via social media communications. It was totally outside my jurisdiction as head of year and outside the jurisdiction of the school itself. That imposed a huge workload on teachers and led to major behavioural issues, which are the No. 1 and No. 3 issues in every single survey on why people are leaving the teaching profession. I therefore implore the Government to act on this. I hope that every school will now take action, look to those like the Michaela school and deliver a smartphone-free education.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for making one of the most superb speeches that I have heard in my time in this House.
In the 1940s, advertising men told us that more doctors smoked Camel cigarettes than any other type of cigarette, and as the evidence about smoking piled up they started to say that things were complicated and that it was not obvious what was going on with smoking and cancer. That is a reminder of the ruthlessness that people can deploy when there is lots of money to be made.
When I was Public Health Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care, I was keen that we started to treat this issue as a major emerging public health problem. I am proud that smoking is going down but—oh boy—the problems caused by smartphones and social media are going up and up. The trends, including the explosive growth of children’s mental health problems and self-harm in the real world, roughly since the 2010s, can be seen all over the world at the same time. The evidence is compelling, and increasingly the causal evidence is also there, so it is clear that it is time to act.
There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems. It is not just about the time taken up, the lack of sleep, the increased ADHD and the lack of concentration they cause; it is about the more subtle things as well. Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian communications theorist, said that the medium is the message, and he meant that about TV. As well as what people were watching, it mattered that people just sat there passively. Smartphones isolate us, and for young people they provide an infinite scroll through the edited highlights of other people’s lives.
There was a famous social science experiment in which people were given bowls of tomato soup and told to eat as much as they wanted. What they were not told was that the bowls of tomato soup were filling up from the bottom. People would drink extraordinary amounts of tomato soup—literally gallons of the stuff; gut-busting amounts. That is a metaphor for what the infinite scroll and the world of social media have done for us.
Young people now effectively live like politicians: they are living a second life in the minds of other people and constantly thinking about their image. They are trying to post what they are doing rather than living in the moment, with disastrous consequences. Smartphones and social media are not the only things driving these problems—adverse childhood experiences are a big part of why people have severe mental health problems, and the increased over-cossetting of children in the real world is another part of the story—but it is clear now that smartphones and social media are a big part of the story.
We have a problem, and it is a collective action problem. Parents do not want to give their kids tablets and other social media devices as early as they do, but they feel the peer pressure to do so. A study by Sapiens Labs shows incredibly clearly that the earlier a parent gives their kids these things, the worse they will do. Kids do not want these things either. A 2018 report by the Science and Technology Committee found, after we had talked to a lot of young people, that they would like to have a smartphone-free childhood. I am not surprised that in recent weeks we have seen literally tens of thousands of parents joining groups that try to get smartphones out of our schools.
I have a question that I really want to hear the Minister address directly. We were promised a consultation on these issues and it should be out now; when is it coming? I really want a date. Secondly, when can we implement a proper ban on phones in schools? Policy Exchange research has already been mentioned that shows that only one in 10 schools have implemented a proper ban, whereby they take phones away from children at the start of the day so that they are not constantly distracted by their phones, are not thinking about the next text, are not slipping phones out in class, and have a blissful moment when they are living in the real world, free from smartphones and social media.
This should be a beachhead for us to start to change the norm. We should start with schools but work outwards to address the effects of the increasing exposure of children to smartphones and social media, so will the Minister please undertake to look seriously at funding and insisting on a proper smartphone ban in all our schools? In that way, we can give our children something that we all enjoyed: a childhood in the real world, not trapped on a screen.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing this important debate.
I am the father of three young children, and I am very concerned about the impact of smartphones and social media. This is not just about what is said by the MPs here and the polling that my hon. Friend spoke about persuasively. In the short time I have today, I will focus on the empirical evidence that proves the detrimental effect of these technologies on children’s development and health.
A study by the University of Cambridge revealed that frequent smartphone use among adolescents is linked to decreased academic achievement and delayed emotional maturity. The university has done detailed work on this, so we are talking about these problems not on a whim, but as a result of clear evidence. As the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health warns, excessive screen time can lead to a host of physical health problems too, including obesity, sleep disturbances and vision problems. The NHS already advises that the blue light emitted by screens disrupts the production of melatonin, the hormone responsible for regulating sleep, which leads to poorer sleep quality and duration, particularly among children.
In addition to the detrimental effects on children’s physical health and academic performance, it is important that we look at the research that highlights the impact of smartphones and social media on their mental and emotional wellbeing. Leading universities have conducted research on that. Research by the University of Bristol and University College London has found that children who spend more time on social media report higher levels of depressive symptoms, and a study by the Office for National Statistics revealed a significant increase in mental health issues among adolescents in recent years. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a coincidence that smartphone and social media use rose in that same period—the problems are caused by them. The empirical evidence makes it clear that children’s unrestricted access to smartphones and social media poses a great risk to their development and wellbeing.
I remember my first phone, a Nokia 3210; the high point was playing Snake. I remember the Sony Ericsson T68, which had a detachable camera—the first time a camera was on a phone. I remember my first BlackBerry, which put email in my pocket. If my hon. Friend’s inbox is anything like mine, she will know that is a mixed blessing.
As parents of our own children and Members of Parliament for the nation’s children, it is our responsibility and duty to take action to protect them and give them their childhood back. It is only by limiting exposure to smartphones and these harmful influences by banning them in schools and raising the age for social media use that we will be able to safeguard our children’s physical, mental and emotional health, and secure the brighter future for generations to come that I know the Minister and this Government want to achieve.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this really important debate. I agree with much of what hon. Members have said about teenagers and adolescents, but I want to focus on very young children. Ninety per cent of the brain is developed before the age of five. That is when we learn to communicate and think, and develop problem-solving and resilience skills. The brain is wired in those early years.
Last week, I visited one of my primary schools and spoke to the headteacher Faye White. She explained that the way she sees children using their devices today is completely different to plonking a child down in front of “Balamory” or “Postman Pat” like I used to do. Children are scrolling rapidly—they watch, scroll, watch, scroll and move on to the next thing. She sees that that is making many children lose their ability to concentrate. They do not develop the ability to concentrate for anything but short periods of time. She spoke to me about her deep concern that that is driving some of the increase in more children having ADHD and other needs. Young children are being impacted.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the most vile of content: child sexual abuse. Children are being groomed to perform sexual acts in their bedrooms, directed from afar by hideous online perpetrators and often filmed without their knowledge. The content is so disgusting. At its most basic, it is sexual posing, but it goes on into sadism, degradation and even performing sexual acts with animals. My hon. Friend mentioned the work that IWF does to identify that content and take it off the internet. What she did not mention was that last year 2,401 of those images were identified by IWF as involving children in the age range of three to six. The question is not whether that is okay, but what we as legislators do about it. The Online Safety Act 2023 will make a big difference, but we must not think that the job is finished.
Like many others, I was deeply moved by Brianna’s mum’s call for child phones. We have child-safe car seats and child locks on medicine bottles and on cupboards that contain our household cleaning products. Why cannot we build child safety by design into phones for children? The Monday after Brianna’s mum spoke about the need for a child-safe phone, I put my name down on the list to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill in this place. I will get a chance to present the Bill before the summer recess, and I hope to use it to get people thinking.
My Bill would introduce point-of-sale controls so that if a phone is bought for a child or if someone is passing on a phone to a child, the parents would be given access to and provided information on parental controls. The Bill would introduce app store controls, similar to those proposed in France, so that age-inappropriate apps could not be downloaded if a child is using the phone. To protect children from paedophiles in their bedrooms, the Bill would introduce new system-level controls, so that iOS and Android would stop a child from uploading that content.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
If we needed any more evidence of how addictive and distracting smartphones are, I would encourage anyone to look around the House of Commons Chamber later. We are all grown adults working in serious business, and we know that we are on television, yet we often cannot stop fiddling and faffing with our phones—I am guilty of that as well. How the hell can we expect children to stay off their phones and concentrate in schools if that is what they are seeing all around them?
Education is vital. We spend a lot of time in this place arguing about how to do it right, and those hours and years in the classroom should not be compromised. We need to give teachers, who work so hard to qualify—it is vocational; they want to be there and to do a good job—the best chance of teaching well. As Professor Jonathan Haidt said in Policy Exchange’s excellent report, having a mobile phone at school is the equivalent of us bringing our television sets to school back in our day, along with our video cassette recorders, record players, walkie-talkies and any other communication devices or games, and sticking them on our school desks. We would not have done that, so why are we allowing it now?
I wrote about banning smartphones in schools in the Stroud News & Journal. I thank all the parents from around my district who got in touch. One father, Leo, said that despite being a millennial and working in digital marketing for his profession, he personally decided to move away from smartphones about three years ago, partly in anticipation of conversations with his kids regarding this matter. He wrote about that on LinkedIn, and he encouraged me to look at the Smartphone Free Childhood movement. I also applaud UsForThem and the many other organisations.
I think that the argument about whether we need to introduce an effective ban on smartphones in schools has been won, but the question is how we do that. It is tough for some schools, and that is why I encourage people to look at Policy Exchange’s list of recommendations, which includes schools, Ofsted and politicians, and encourages everybody to think those things through.
I was in the park this weekend with my two little ones, who are one and three. I am a proper helicopter parent— I was shepherding them around, worrying about them going up and down slides, and all those sorts of things—yet we are giving children phones to have in their pockets and bedrooms that encourage bullying, harassment, violent porn, dick pics, cyber-flashing, eating disorders, self-harm and exploitation, as many hon. Members have talked about. I spend so much time thinking about how to protect my kids from the world, yet those things are going to be very live in their little lives soon if we do not do something about this issue, and I do not think that is good enough.
One of the campaigns that I have been running for years is about tackling anonymous abuse. No matter what this place does, some children are likely to end up online and on social media even if we put the best bans and the best measures in place. Clean Up the Internet and I are trying to require tech companies to set ID verification options that allow people to follow and be followed by only real people who have been verified online. The Government have legislated for that, and tech companies know how valuable it is because they are charging people for their blue ticks, including me. I signed up to see what it does, so I am charged like 11 quid a month on Instagram just for the privilege of saying that I am who I say I am.
We have to go faster. Ofcom has a lot to do, but it is not implementing that legislation quickly enough. Real people can be caught more quickly if we have their identification. We need to put that in place and I ask the Minister to fast-forward what Ofcom is doing in that respect.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
There is time for one last speaker, Lia Nici, but I will have to restrict her to two minutes. I will begin calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Thank you, Sir George; I will be quick. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this very sad, but very important debate. It is good to have the Minister in his place, but we need action from the Department for Education. There is no excuse for headteachers and governors not to implement mobile phone bans in every school, nursery school—we know we have problems there—and college if necessary, because we need to halt this now.
Being a parent—having a child and a family—is a precious thing. During the last four years, when I have been travelling by train to come here and back, I have sadly seen only two families who have not plugged their toddlers or children into mobile phones or devices because they just want them to be quiet. In fact, most of those families are not only doing that, but isolating their children by putting headphones on them. Those children are not interacting with their parents, they are not looking at the countryside, and they are not learning about the world around them.
We need action to be taken quickly. As we have heard, the Online Safety Act will do lots of things, but it took this place five years to get it moving. We need some short, sharp Bills. We also need the Department for Education to crack on and tell schools that these dangerous devices should not be allowed in schools.
We need help for parents. It is difficult, but the word is parent, not friend—a parent is there to parent their children. We need not only our tech giants to get on with it, but our broadcasters, such as the BBC and ITV, and internet providers to get a grip. Everybody now needs to work together because this is a vital issue.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing it. I want to talk about a number of things: safety online by design, the safety of devices by design, and parental and child education. Just to confuse everyone, I will do that in reverse order, starting off with parental and child education.
Ofcom has a media literacy strategy consultation on the go just now, as well as the consultation on the strategy around protecting children. Both are incredibly important. We have a massive parental knowledge gap. In about 15 or 20 years, this will not be nearly so much of a problem, because parents then will have grown up online. I am from the first generation of parents who grew up online. My kids are 10 and 13. I got the internet at home when I was six or seven, although not in the way that my kids did. Hardly anybody in this House grew up on the internet, and hardly any of the parents of my children’s peers grew up online.
I know very well the dangers there are online, and I am able to talk to my children about them. I have the privilege, the ability and the time to ensure that I know everything about everything they are doing online—whether that means knowing the ins and outs of how Fortnite works, or how any of the games they are playing online work, I am lucky enough to be able to do that. Some parents have neither the time nor the energy nor the capacity to do that.
Miriam Cates
I commend the hon. Lady for her knowledge and dedication, but is it not the case that even parents as diligent as her find that teenagers can bypass these controls? Even if our children do not have access to a device, they can easily be shown the most harmful of material on the school bus. Is this not actually about child development, and whether a child has the brain development to be able to use these devices safely, rather than just about education?
Kirsty Blackman
I wanted to talk about education among a number of other things. Children can absolutely be shown things on the bus, and stuff like that; children and young people will do what they can to subvert their parents’ authority in all sorts of ways, not just when it comes to mobile phones. Part of the point I was making is that I have the privilege of being able to take those actions, while parents who are working two jobs and are really busy dealing with many other children, for example, may not have the time to do so. We cannot put it all on to parental education, but we cannot put it all on to the education of the children, either. We know that however much information we give children or young people—particularly teenagers—they are still going to make really stupid decisions a lot of the time. I know I made plenty of stupid decisions as a teenager, and I am fairly sure that my children will do exactly the same.
I grew up using message boards, which have now been taken over by Reddit, and MSN Messenger, while kids now use Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp. I grew up using internet relay chat—IRC—and Yahoo! Chat, which have taken over by Discord, and playing Counter-Strike, which has now been subsumed by Fortnite. I used Myspace and Bebo, while kids now use things like Instagram. These things have been around for a very long time. We have needed an online safety Act for more than 20 years. When I was using these things in the ’90s, I was subject to the same issues that my children and other children are seeing today. Just because it was not so widespread does not mean it was not happening, because it absolutely was.
The issue with the Online Safety Act is that it came far too late—I am glad that we have it, but it should have been here 20 years ago. It also does not go far enough; it does not cover all the things that we need it to cover. During the passage of the Act, we talked at length about things like livestreaming, and how children should not be allowed to livestream at all under any circumstance. We could have just banned children from livestreaming and said that all platforms should not allow children to livestream because of the massive increase in the amount of self-generated child sexual abuse images, but the Government chose not to do that.
We have to have safety by design in these apps. We have to ensure that Ofcom is given the powers—which, even with the Online Safety Act, it does not have—to stop platforms allowing these things to happen and effectively ban children from accessing them. Effective age assurance would address some of the problems that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raises. Of course, children will absolutely still try to go around these things, but having that age assurance and age gating, as far as we possibly can—for example, the stuff that Ofcom is doing around pornographic content—will mean that children will not be able to access that content. I do not see that there should be any way for any child to access pornographic content once the Online Safety Act fully comes in, and once Ofcom has the full powers and ability to do that.
The other issue with the Online Safety Act is that it is too slow. There are a lot of consultation procedures and lead-in times. It should have come in far quicker, and then we would have had this protection earlier for our children and young people.
We need to have the safety of devices by design. I am slightly concerned about the number of children who are not lucky enough to get a brand-new phone; the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) talked about passing on a phone to a child. Covering that is essential if we are to have safety of devices by design. Online app stores are not effectively covered or as effectively covered as they should be, particularly when it comes to age ratings. I spoke to representatives of an online dating app, who said that they want their app to be 18-plus, but that one of the stores has rated it as 16-plus and they keep asking the store to change it and the store keeps refusing. It is totally ridiculous that we are in that situation. The regulation of app stores is really important, especially when parents will use the app store’s age rating; they will assume that the rating put forward by the app store is roughly correct. We need to make changes in that respect and we need to come down on the app stores, because they are so incredibly powerful. That is a real moment when parents, if they have parental controls, have that ability to make the changes.
In relation to safety online by design, I have already spoken about live streaming. When it comes to gaming, it is entirely possible for children to play online games without using chat functions. Lots of online games do not actually have any chat function at all. Children can play Minecraft without having any chat; they cannot play Roblox without having any effective access to chat. Parents need to understand the difference between Minecraft and Roblox—and not allow anyone to play Roblox, because it is awful.
There are decisions that need to be taken in relation to safety online by design. If people have effective age verification and an effective understanding of the audience for each of these apps and online settings, they can ensure that the rules are in place. I am not convinced yet that Ofcom has enough powers to say what is and what is not safe for children online. I am not convinced that even with the Online Safety Act, there is the flexibility for it to say, “Right—if you have done your child access assessment and you think that your app is likely to be used by children, you cannot have live streaming on the app.” I am not convinced that it has enough teeth to be able to take that action. It does when it comes to illegal content, but when it comes to things that are harmful for children but legal for adults, there is not quite enough strength for the regulator.
I will keep doing what I have been doing in this House, which is saying that the online world can be brilliant—it can be great. Kids can have a brilliant time playing online. They can speak to their friends; particularly if children are isolated or lonely, there are places where they can find fellowship and other people who are feeling the same way. That can be a positive thing. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has laid out where often the online world is negative, but it can be positive too. There are so many benefits in terms of schoolwork, clubs, accessing friends, and calendars. Cameras are great, too. My children sometimes use the bird app on their phones to work out which birds are singing. It is brilliant that they can do things like that online.
There are so many benefits, but we have a responsibility, just as we do when our children are playing in the park, to ensure that they are safe. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that the regulators have enough teeth to make sure that the online world is safe, so that children can get the benefits of the online world and of using smartphones but are not subject to the extremely negative outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned his constituent and the awful loss experienced by their family. Children should never, ever have to face that situation online, and we have a responsibility to regulate to ensure that they never have to.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I first place on the record my enormous commendation to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for bringing forward this debate? These issues are very live in many houses, schools and communities up and down the country, and she has done an enormous service to the House by raising them not just today but on many different days. There may be different elements of the matter on which we do not entirely agree, but I think that bringing such issues to the fore is vital.
I used to be a priest in the Church of England, in High Wycombe. That was where I served my title, and most of my work involved working with young kids—running the church youth groups and so on. Growing up was tough as a young person then; all the issues, such as bullying, the fear of missing out and peer pressure, existed way back then as well. In fact, I ended up doing a series of funerals for children who had taken their own lives, all of whom knew each other.
I am therefore very conscious that growing up has never been easy, but the changes over the last 25 or 30 years have been added to the equation: the arrival of the internet, smartphones with cameras, and social media; in some cases, the problems for chaotic families and those who are really struggling financially; and, in recent years, the problems that covid has brought, with lots of kids not being able to socialise in school in the way that we were all able to—I note that we are all a little bit older than the average. I am painfully aware, then, of the really difficult situation in which many young people are growing up today.
I am also conscious that human eyes today see much more violence. I am not making a flippant point, but I feel as if I have witnessed thousands of murders, just because every week a lot of television is about crime. In the old days, if a child went even to watch a film like “Jaws”, which has frightening moments in it, they would have been going with their parents. If they had been watching a crime programme on television, they would have been watching it with their parents.
Today, that probably is not true. Nearly everything they will have seen, they will see themselves on a small phone up in their room or in their friend’s room or round the back of the bike shed with some friends—although I am not sure whether the bike shed exists any more! The level of extreme violence and sexualised content that we are all witness to, and that children are witness to, often entirely on their own, needs to make us think and pause for a moment. Sometimes, this has meant that lots of kids have lost the ability to relate directly to other people, and that is, in the end, problematic. We need to deal with that.
Social media has turbocharged some of the worst aspects of humanity. Some people put on social media things that they would never ever write down on a piece of paper—that they would never think to put their own name to. A couple of Members have raised anonymity, which is undoubtedly part of the issue. People create some other identity for themselves, which somehow allows them to say some of the absolutely vilest, most despicable things imaginable. It has not been mentioned, but I would add that the algorithms often contribute to the process. They are not neutral, and often exacerbate some of the worst aspects of humanity. I will say a few things about the social media companies in a moment, but they need to take cognisance of that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for my late arrival this morning, Sir George—I had a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meeting this morning, and I had to ask for permission to leave.
On the issue of suicide, the Northern Ireland figures for those aged 16 to 24 in 2014 to 2016 are incredibly worrying. One in 10 children in Northern Ireland suffer from anxiety and depression, which is 25% higher than other UK jurisdictions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any policy on this issue must be UK-wide?
Sir Chris Bryant
It needs to be UK-wide, but it also needs to recognise devolution. We have been talking about schools, for instance, and some of those issues are devolved responsibilities in Scotland, Northen Ireland and Wales, so we need to work across the whole UK. Of course, some of these issues are not just national, but international, because in many cases we are dealing with companies whose profits may be made in this country but who may not be taxed in this country and are headquartered elsewhere.
Let me state some first principles. First, obviously the primary duty of any Government is to keep its citizens safe. We say that endlessly and repeatedly, but we seem to always think that it means national security and policing. Actually, it is also about online safety for children, as has been said by several Members today.
Secondly, mental health is just as important as physical health. To anybody who thinks it is just about people pulling up their socks or whatever, I say that that just does not meet the need. We should all have understood that better by now. I will say this gently: it was a misstep and a mistake for some to refer to the Online Safety Act as “legislating for hurt feelings.” Hurt feelings can lead to very serious physical harm. We know the story of Brianna Ghey. I will not rehearse it, but I pay enormous tribute to her mother, who has shown extraordinary levels of humanity.
Sir Chris Bryant
I will not, if the right hon. Lady does not mind, because I have several points to make— I am terribly sorry.
Physical and personal interaction with others is vital to humanity. I apologise for the casual sexism of the early 17th century, but John Donne said:
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
…
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.”
We are fundamentally social beings, and sometimes social media can enable that. Grandparents FaceTime with their grandchildren, and they would of course never have dreamed of being able to do so 30 years ago. That is wonderful, but where social media replaces social interaction, we have long-term problems.
Of course, social media and the internet can be enormously valuable. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, she gets lost if she does not have Google Maps working—sometimes I cannot get it to work properly. I do not know how anybody ever managed to meet up back in the 1960s and 1970s. These are all wonderful innovations, and they are great for kids, too. They have a place in education: I want lots of kids to learn how to create apps and be part of the vibrant UK economy by creating video games and all the rest of it. That is part of the issue, but we cannot just bow down before that altar and surrender everything.
My other fundamental principle is that no executive is above the law, which is why I believe that swift and full implementation of the Online Safety Act is so important. I echo the points that have already been made. The Minister probably agrees that it has taken us too long to get to this point with the Online Safety Act. I will not make partisan points about all the ups and downs and ins and outs, but it has taken too long, and I worry about whether the next processes will happen anywhere near fast enough.
There are some things that Labour is keen to do. First, we need better mental health support for young people. It is shocking that one in four 17 to 19-year-olds in England now have a mental health problem. That is up from one in 10 in 2017, which is a dramatic increase. That may be partly to do with covid, but it is a significant problem. We want to put many more specialist mental health professionals into schools. I have family members who work in this field, and they desperately need more support. Early support is really important in preventing escalation. The problem of brain injuries in schools has hardly been recognised, and the Government will not even be able to give us proper numbers on how many kids in schools have had a brain injury and needed support. Also, creative education can be an important part of fostering better self-confidence, self-understanding, socialisation, and team working, and one of the problems over recent years is that that has fallen away.
Age guidelines must be truly effective, and it is worrying that Ofcom’s early research on stopping children using social media finds that it is almost impossible to do so even for children as young as five. That is highly problematic, and much more work needs to be done. For all sorts of economic reasons of their own, social media companies have failed to regulate themselves. They have sometimes not told the full truth about what their algorithms do, or about their economic model. The divide between those who argue, “No nanny state,” and those who argue, “Protect our children,” is a false dichotomy. The question is not “What legislation?” but, “How do we make sure that we have the right legislation?”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this important debate. She is a passionate campaigner, and I thank her for her engagement on this issue on numerous occasions, including by coming to see me. I also thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant); worryingly, this is the second time in about 24 hours that I have found myself agreeing with him.
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Gentleman calls on me to resign. Before he asks me to join him on his Benches, I should say that a space on our Benches recently became available, if he wants it. I found myself in considerable agreement with him.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This is clearly a hugely complex issue. I want to start by stating that before being a Minister, I am a parent. I probably make my colleagues sick by talking about that constantly, but it is one of the most rewarding and fulfilling privileges of my lifetime. Being a parent is also one of the scariest things. I have to worry, as we all do, about whether they will grow up to be healthy, make friends at school and, now, whether they will be safe in the online world as well as in the offline world.
I also want my children to have a fulfilling childhood, to learn the skills of tomorrow while we protect them online. Therein lies the conundrum.
Saqib Bhatti
I will make a little progress. I want to focus on the issue of research and data. The UK chief medical officer, among others, has systematically reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that an association between screen-based activities and poor mental health exists, but existing research does not yet prove a causal relationship. Other investigations, however, such as those by Professor Haidt, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, into the link between these technologies and mental health have suggested a harmful relationship. The scientific community is considering Professor Haidt’s findings, and we are watching that discussion with interest.
I want to reassure hon. Members that on research and causality, I am considering every option to ensure we leave no stone unturned. I will look at this very closely to ensure that any policies that come forward are based on science and data.
Miriam Cates
I thank my hon. Friend for his reassuring insistence that he will look into the data. The US Surgeon General, who recently visited Parliament, made the point that, if social media or smartphones were a drug, they would be immediately withdrawn from the market because of the harm they are reputed to cause. Even if the full causality is not as established as the Minister wants, is the evidence not so clear and the impact so harmful that it would be sensible to withdraw social media before conducting that research?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend, who has made that point passionately, both here and in private. The important thing is to have the data to back such a significant conclusion, because social media also benefits young people and society and a balance has to be achieved.
Saqib Bhatti
I am going to make some progress. To be clear, that does not rule out taking a precautionary approach. We need to consider the impacts carefully before taking action. As the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said before this debate, it is important to strike the right balance between protecting children from harm and allowing them to reap the benefits of safe internet use. We will continue to explore options in this space. I welcome further engagement, research and evidence in this area to inform our policies.
Dean Russell
On those points, does the Minister agree that this is not just about addiction for some, but about dependency and harm for many? Artificial intelligence is only going to supercharge this. Does he agree that tech companies need to be held to account and ensure protections are in place, and that Ofcom needs to use the powers it has been given to force them to do that?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Let me say clearly that there is no reason why the tech companies could not have acted over the past few years. There is no reason for them to wait for Ofcom’s code of practice; they should be getting on with the job. I said that as a Back Bencher, and I mean it. The Online Safety Act is what we consider to be technology-agnostic. It covers a lot of the incidences of AI, but we obviously continue to monitor the situation.
Vicky Ford
I am so glad that my hon. Friend says he is looking at all options to keep children safe. On the issue of preventing children from being able to upload sexual content or from being groomed into uploading sexual images, will he look at the suggestion put to me by the national police lead and others of putting controls at systems level, so that a phone cannot upload that content when the upload is by a child?
Saqib Bhatti
I will limit further interventions due the time I have, but I will write to my right hon. Friend on that issue.
Saqib Bhatti
I will make some progress. We are aware of the ongoing debate regarding the age at which children should have a smartphone. We recognise the risks that technology such as smartphones pose, but I would argue that a ban would not necessarily achieve the outcome we wish. As has already been said, children can find ways through. We also have to consider who we are criminalising and how legislation would intervene in the lives of the private individual. We live in a digital age and many parents want their children to have a smartphone, as they provide benefits to children and parents, such as staying connected while travelling alone. In other words, trying to protect children from one harm may well lead to another. I speak to many parents who give me the other side of the argument, and I wanted to put that on the record.
The decision on whether a child should have access to a smartphone should not be one for Government. Instead, we should empower parents to make the right call for their children and their individual circumstances. In fact, parents as consumers can influence the market themselves. It is my belief that choice is a liberty that parents and children should be allowed to exercise.
I agree that online platforms must take responsibility for the harmful effects of the design of their services and their business models. That is why the Online Safety Act is a groundbreaking piece of legislation, which puts the onus on platforms to ensure that children are protected. I want to reassure parents that the legislation will change significantly how our children grow up in the online world. If social media companies do not do the right thing, we have given Ofcom the teeth to go after them—and I fully expect it to do so.
Children’s wellbeing is at the heart of the Act, and the strongest protections are for children. Under the new regulations, social media platforms will need to assess the risks of their services facilitating illegal content and activity. That includes illegal abuse, harassment or stirring up hatred. They will need to assess the risk of children being harmed on their services by content that does not cross the illegal threshold, but that is harmful to them, which is something that was brought up.
Saqib Bhatti
I will make some progress as I am very short on time, and I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge time to respond.
I want to be unequivocal here: the Online Safety Act ensures that the UK is the safest place to be online, requiring all companies to take robust action against illegal content. Last week, Ofcom published the draft codes of practice for the child safety rules. Those protections are a real game changer and will establish the foundation to protect generations to come. I commend Ofcom for its proposals. It rightly puts the onus on big tech to do the right thing and keep our children safe. I say this to big tech: with great reward comes great responsibility. They have that responsibility and they must act.
Part of the codes identify risks that children need to be protected from, and they also set out the requirement for platforms to implement highly effective age assurance technology to prevent children from encountering harmful content on their services, including pornography, and content that depicts serious violence or promotes serious self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.
Tackling suicide and self-harm material is a key objective of the Online Safety Act. We have heard too many stories of the devastating impact of that content, and I commend all the parents who have campaigned on the issue. They have gone through the most unimaginable, heartbreaking and heart-wrenching challenges. We continue to engage with them, and I commend them for their bravery. There is a live consultation on age assurance at the moment and I encourage all Members to engage with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) raised a number of key issues and I will write to her in response. She also talked about parental responsibility, which is important. I think she raised the issue of chat functions, which are also in the scope of the Online Safety Act. The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) spoke about the tragic case of Murray Dowey. I offer my condolences to the parents and my open door; I would be more than happy to meet them with the hon. Member in attendance.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) talked about the responsibility of the Department for Education. I am sure that has been heard, and I will continue to engage with Minsters. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) talked about his Nokia 3210. Nokia has started remarketing the 3210, so he should look forward to a Christmas present—not from me, but from someone who likes him. I wish him all the best with that.
My final comment is that I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, as would the Secretary of State.
Miriam Cates
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so compellingly to the debate. I am hugely encouraged by the strength of feeling and the unanimity in the Chamber.
I want to make a final point: this is not a debate about liberty, freedom, parenting or technology; it is a debate about child development. The human brain is not wired to learn from passive consumption; it is wired to learn from real-life interaction. That is how children learn. However safe we make the internet from damaging content, children will never gain the skills, knowledge and wellbeing they need from staring at a screen. They will always need real-life interaction. That is why we must restrict screens and ban social media for under-16s —because otherwise they will never learn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of smartphones and social media on children.
Innovation Centre for Energy Transition: Peterborough
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an innovation centre for energy transition in Peterborough.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. Once again, I have the pleasure of making the case for my super city of Peterborough. In February, I hosted a reception in Parliament to launch the business case for a facility in Peterborough for researching and developing hydrogen technologies. I want to attract high-skilled, high-wage jobs to my growing city; I made that key promise to the people of Peterborough, and this proposal is an excellent opportunity to achieve that as it would bring globally competitive research and development technologies to the UK.
I want the UK be a green, low-carbon economy. We should be proud that we have made enormous strides in that regard since 2010. Investment in technology, not punitive measures that would make working people colder and poorer, is the way to continue the drive towards net zero and make the UK competitive over the coming decades. We must drive productive growth in new industries and technologies.
Partners in Peterborough including the city council, Anglia Ruskin University, TWI and key businesses are developing their case for a high-growth energy cluster at the new university campus on Peterborough’s Embankment. It is the culmination of a 10-year plan to transform the local economy and will platform technology-focused foreign direct investment in the UK to drive growth in the green economy and address some of the most challenging obstacles to the international community’s transition to new energies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and I support his efforts to increase Peterborough’s potential. Does he agree that if we are ever to come close to our net zero target, investment is needed on a large scale? I support what he is saying and agree that university research, corralling the best and brightest minds, is essential. Does he envisage that that will include university students from across the whole of the United Kingdom and will lead to a UK-wide centre with UK and global benefits?
Paul Bristow
The hon. Gentleman must have had a sneak glance at my speech, because that is exactly what I am going to say.
We must do that while creating new high-skilled and well-paid job opportunities in Peterborough. The ambition is to create a new research institute called the global innovation centre for energy transition, through which to attract large global energy production companies, including Shell, BP and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and a consortium of domestic industrial high energy users. Foundation industries, such as steel, glass and concrete producers, will develop the new technologies needed for the safe transmission, distribution and use of hydrogen in industrial and domestic applications. The ecosystem created will also focus on related technologies for the storage of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, as well as the production of sustainable aviation fuels.
Global energy and technology companies are ready to partner with the UK Government to invest in the establishment of the centre and fund a 10-year programme of research and development worth £150 million. These firms will pool resources, knowledge and investment at sufficient scale, as well as scientific expertise, to generate the enabling technologies to produce new products and systems that will allow the new market to form and grow.
Excitingly, the R&D programme will create opportunities for local businesses and supply chains to link into the research institute’s global network, attracting R&D investment into the east of England from large knowledge-intensive businesses in Europe, the US and the Gulf states. That in turn will increase demand for higher level skills, improving access to better quality jobs, and increasing aspirations and wages for local residents. That is important to the UK and to Peterborough.
First, there is the obvious case for transitioning towards more sustainable, greener energy sources. Hydrogen can form an important part of our future energy mix in the UK, but the UK’s natural gas network is currently unsuitable for the transportation of hydrogen, which can permeate and cause failure in steel pipes—a phenomenon known as hydrogen embrittlement. New transmission networks will need to be developed from new materials. Those include protective inner coatings or non-metallic network materials to safely store, transport and distribute hydrogen. The UK Government plan to assemble sufficient evidence by September 2024 to enable a decision to be made in 2025 on whether to upgrade the national grid distribution network. The global innovation centre for energy transition can be operational in 2026 and ready to develop the solutions to enable the transformation.
Many of the foundation industries’ process equipment for the production of glass, steel and concrete, although having shown the ability to use hydrogen cost-effectively in pilot trials, is at risk of component failure and may present serious safety risks. Significant research is needed to develop safe materials, equipment and operating procedures to allow the transition of those industrial processes from natural gas to hydrogen. There are no other plans in the UK to attract research and development activity in this emerging sector.
Global firms are looking at addressing specific aspects of the broader challenge. Those disparate efforts will create a patchwork of solutions. By attracting a critical mass of the key players to integrate their R&D programmes in the UK, there is an opportunity to lock those firms into a joint endeavour for decades to come. That in turn provides the UK with the opportunity to find ways of convening its science base as a partnership with, for instance, the Henry Royce Institute and the high value manufacturing catapult to create a solutions network bespoke to the challenges around the transmission, storage and use of hydrogen and CO2.
In a stepwise manner, we can use the opportunity to integrate R&D in the UK, expanding the network of UK institutes that can create an anchoring effect, which makes it difficult for the energy companies to disengage and disintegrate their R&D efforts in this specific field. The ultimate benefit of attracting and integrating global R&D efforts is the opportunity to link intellectual property into UK supply chains for myriad technical applications, including design, manufacturing and services.
The second reason for developing the technology and why it should be done in Peterborough relates to the opportunity to develop a high-value industry that can provide opportunities for high-skilled workers and help to level up the regional economy. The business structure of Peterborough has transitioned over the last few decades from industries based in engineering and manufacturing to lower value services in retail, wholesale, transport and storage, accommodation and food services. Employment has remained relatively high, but average wages are 9% lower than the national average.
Peterborough was on a trend towards the classic low-wage, low-skill equilibrium, but in recent years it has emerged as an increasingly innovative economy. It is now among the 15 cities with the highest number of business start-ups and patents in the UK. The move towards more knowledge-intensive industries can also be observed when looking at the make-up of its industrial structure, with five high-performing business sectors, including advanced engineering and manufacturing, agri-tech, food and drink, digital and creative, energy and environment, and financial services.
Making further progress is not without its challenges. Peterborough has for a long time been an education cold spot, with low levels of participation in higher education and low skill levels among the working-age population. It has limited wage and productivity growth, at 6% below the national average. Skills of level 4 and above are lower than in the wider region, but are now improving quickly. We are turning a corner. The new university has helped to turn the situation around and will accelerate the trend, providing the necessary skill base for existing firms and new science and tech businesses that can be attracted into the city by a new research centre.
Although there are signs that industry formation is improving, with new start-ups in knowledge-intensive industries, the local ecosystem is fragmented and lacks strong links to higher education and research institutions. The proposed R&D facility will provide the demand-side driver for innovation and growth. It will accelerate the positive progress we are making with recent investment and levelling-up projects in our city.
The future for Peterborough will benefit from a new rail upgrade with faster links into London and across the east of England to Cambridge and other neighbouring cities and towns, and the development of the city centre around the new station quarter will provide new, affordable, grade A commercial premises that will help to attract new businesses into Peterborough. The regeneration of the station quarter, combined with an R&D facility for green energy at the university campus, will create better links to London and Cambridge, enabling greater spill-out effects.
The immediate benefits of a new research facility and R&D programme stem from rapidly establishing an innovative ecosystem that generates increasing demand for high-skilled workers in Peterborough and the fens. They include the creation of 100 direct jobs in R&D and 200 indirect jobs in related science, technology, engineering and maths activity. The R&D programme will also create 500 indirect and induced jobs through the participation of 150 local firms in global supply chains, as well as new business start-ups and spinouts.
There will be a substantial positive economic impact on Peterborough city and the surrounding region. Investment in the R&D programme will generate a positive impact in new opportunities for graduate-level employment, encouraging both participation in higher education and, more important, the local retention of graduates. As we become a more skilled working city, it is important to retain our graduates. The R&D centre will allow us to do just that.
However, the wider benefits will also accrue to the UK as a whole. The global market for these new technologies is huge. The forecast value of global hydrogen transmission and distribution pipe networks is estimated to be £427 billion by 2050. By anchoring the underpinning knowledge for these solutions into the UK via the global innovation centre, we significantly increase the chances for British firms—those regionally around Peterborough, and those connected through hubs in Middlesbrough and Port Talbot—to be integrated into future supply chains.
Having the technology developed here also gives the UK first-mover advantage for the global roll-out of new technologies. The proposal to build a new research institute on the university campus in Peterborough presents a huge opportunity for the regional and national economy. To achieve it, we will need to build on existing expertise and import key elements of the Greater Cambridge innovation ecosystem into Peterborough, creating inherent connectivity between the two cities, which will help to rebalance growth across the region.
We will also need to encourage more residents into higher education, enabling access to higher-value jobs. Currently, the proportion of the working-age population with high-level qualifications at level 4 and above is 36.3%. That is below the regional average of 39.6% and the national average of 43.6%. However, that position is also improving, and the gap has narrowed by more than half since 2018. If Peterborough matched the national average for skills, an extra 9,130 people would have an NVQ level 4 qualification or above.
The establishment of the new university in Peterborough has provided an essential component for an innovation ecosystem, investing in human capital to improve higher-level skills to meet local economic needs, as well as providing vital interactions between businesses and higher education. A new research institute is now needed to build on these developments and to raise demand for higher-skilled jobs in the local economy by attracting global firms and connecting research and industry via a bespoke facility and an R&D programme that can translate research into practice in the local economy. That would provide a strong future energy sector focus to what is currently a fragmented innovation ecosystem, and it would harness regional, national and global opportunities in this emerging sector.
The proposals for a global innovation centre for energy transition at Peterborough have the potential to leverage significant economic benefits for Peterborough and the whole UK. The investment proposals are expected to generate approximately £160 million of private sector investment over 10 years from 2025, against a public investment of £30 million. That would provide a benefit-cost ratio of 3.3, which represents exceptionally good value for money.
We need an urgent meeting with Ministers to realise this opportunity for the UK and for my city. It involves several Departments, spanning trade, energy and levelling up. I hope that the Minister can say today that she is willing to take part in this effort, help me convene such a meeting and get the project moving. I am proud of the progress we are making in Peterborough. As I stated earlier—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Could I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs to leave time for the Minister to respond?
Paul Bristow
I am on my final sentence, Sir George, I promise.
As I stated earlier, the promise that I made to my constituents was to create a higher-skilled, higher-wage economy. This is part of my vision for Peterborough, and we are making great tracks in achieving it. The innovation centre is part of that, and it will only accelerate the fantastic progress that we are already making.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
As always, it is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir George. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this incredibly important debate, for articulating with such passion and feeling how much he cares for the constituency of Peterborough, and for championing the potential of clean technologies and the significant benefits that they will bring to the UK economy.
Before I get on to the specific topic of the innovation centre, I would like to make special mention of the work that the city of Peterborough is doing, and its green ambitions. Last month, two Peterborough organisations scooped the top prizes at the east of England energy efficiency awards. The first is a cause close to my heart, because green energy is vital to our economy and to the future of our planet, but it is also really important to help vulnerable consumers and to ensure that we are helping on the affordability agenda. The second organisation was Peterborough City Council, which won local authority of the year. The council has helped more than 700 households become more energy efficient in the past year.
When I hear that people are trying to make a difference, I am reminded that the energy transition is all about the opportunities. It is about opportunities for lower bills for customers, opportunities for warmer homes for the vulnerable, and opportunities to create jobs, skills and resilient communities—all of which my hon. Friend mentioned—all while protecting our planet against the worst effects of climate change.
Earlier this month, at the Innovation Zero awards ceremony, I addressed a room of hundreds of innovative people and companies about the multiple benefits of the net zero transition. There is no better place for net zero innovation than the United Kingdom. We have attracted £300 billion of private and public investment in low-carbon sectors since 2010, with £100 billion more anticipated by 2030. That is why I was so pleased to hear about the potential establishment of an innovation centre in the city of Peterborough.
It is apt that we find ourselves talking about hydrogen and its immense potential in the energy transition. The Government see low-carbon hydrogen as a critical component of our broader strategy to deliver net zero and energy security, as well as to create economic growth. We have been delivering our 2021 hydrogen strategy through our £240 million net zero hydrogen fund to provide capital support to low-carbon hydrogen projects, and the hydrogen production business model to provide revenue support.
We have set out our plans to deliver up to 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen capacity in the United Kingdom by 2030, subject to affordability and value for money. That is why the green industries growth accelerator—GIGA—exists. With funds of over £1 billion, it supports the expansion of strong and sustainable clean energy supply chains across the United Kingdom, including carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen, electricity networks, nuclear, and offshore wind. GIGA’s ambition is to grow the supply chain for the clean technologies we need for the future. By growing local supply chains, it will increase local skills, as my hon. Friend mentioned, along with the prosperity of the region. From what I have seen already, businesses are clamouring to find, train and keep highly skilled individuals, especially in rapidly growing sectors. To tackle emerging and future workforce demands, we are working with the green jobs delivery group, which will produce a green jobs plan for publication in the first half of 2024.
As my hon. Friend rightly observes in his proposals for the innovation centre, transport and infrastructure are crucial to creating a hydrogen economy. In the British energy security strategy, we committed to designing by 2025 new business models for hydrogen transportation and storage infrastructure, which will be essential to growing the hydrogen economy. My Department is developing business models at pace to provide the necessary support to bring forward that infrastructure investment. Alongside that, we are assessing the growing evidence on emerging hydrogen transportation and storage network needs to determine what infrastructure is required, where and when.
I recognise the role of the proposed innovation centre and its support for the sustainable aviation fuel industry. Building domestic SAF production capacity represents not only a significant economic opportunity, but a way to decarbonise aviation. The UK’s SAF programme is one of the most comprehensive in the world. We have committed to a target of 10% SAF in the United Kingdom aviation fuel mix by 2030. Our jet zero strategy sets out how we plan to achieve net zero emissions from UK aviation by 2050 while continuing to support the growth of this important sector.
Leadership is often said to be the ability to translate a vision into reality. The United Kingdom’s leadership in research and innovation is clear, and it will help us to secure the opportunities from the energy transition. My hon. Friend asked for a meeting across Departments, and I am very conscious that we need to do that; it is very important to achieving our net zero ambition and to supporting ideas such as the innovation centre. I commit today to facilitate that meeting.
I thank my hon. Friend again for organising this incredibly important debate and for reminding us of the importance of this innovation and of how we think about the future of our economy, the climate and our planet. I look forward to hearing further views on this topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the prevention of sexual violence in conflict.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank Labour Friends of Israel, the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel and others for the briefings they have provided for this debate. I also thank Baroness Helic, who is a leading campaigner on this issue.
The focus of this debate is to ensure that we keep shining a light on the horror of the use of sexual violence in conflict. As we know, throughout history sexual violence was considered just part of the spoils of war. Rape, enslavement and murder, particularly of women and girls, formed an accepted part of the narrative of conflicts over centuries. Finally, a breakthrough came just 30 years ago. The deliberate use of mass sexual violence in armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo provoked a loud and very angry response from global women’s organisations and human rights activists, which could not be ignored.
Under that pressure, the United Nations Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993. Significantly, that had an unprecedented commitment to prosecute rape as a crime against humanity, along with other war crimes. A Rwandan tribunal followed with the same objective. In 2000—really not that long ago—the UN Security Council recognised women’s perspectives, rights and roles in relation to peace and security for the very first time. I am pleased to say that that initiative was championed by the UK Labour Government.
Important steps in recent years include the Government’s creation of the UK women, peace and security national action plan and the establishment of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, which has been allocated funding. However, in an increasingly volatile world, women and girls continue to bear the brunt of the violence, and those legal frameworks and tribunals have been insufficient to ensure gender justice.
The use of sexual violence in conflict and the denial and dismissal that so often occurs afterwards remain a constant scourge in conflicts around the world. Shockingly, just last month, the UN special representative on sexual violence in conflict, Pramila Patten, reported that wartime sexual violence increased by 50% in 2023, compared with the previous year.
Perhaps the most well-known example of our failure to tackle sexual violence in conflict in the past year is the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli women and girls on 7 October. Most of the victims of that violence were subsequently murdered, so we may never have a full account of what actually took place.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On issues not being fully reported, does she agree that one of the advantages that we have in the west is that where there is a free press, these issues are highlighted, as they are being today? In some of the more repressive regimes, we hear very little, if anything, about the types of sexual violence that she is rightly alluding to.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a very important point, and I did not include it in my opening remarks, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
What happened on 7 October was a well-documented case of mass sexual violence, in part because the terrorist perpetrators proudly filmed and advertised their crimes. A first responder at kibbutz Be’eri reported finding “piles and piles” of dead women “completely naked” from the waist down, and there have been horrifying reports of sexual mutilation. A survivor of the Supernova music festival massacre, Yoni Saadon, recalled:
“I saw this beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or ten of the fighters beating and raping her…When they finished they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.”
Tragically, Hamas’s use of rape as a weapon of war may not be over yet. Reports indicate that female and male hostages have been sexually assaulted and abused during their incarceration. The fact that sexual violence was committed at multiple locations suggests that it was part of a systematic effort. As the Israeli women’s rights campaigner Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari told the BBC, such a concentration of cases in a relatively short span of time left her in “no doubt” that there was a
“premeditated plan to use sexual violence as a weapon of war”.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my anguish at the fact that the United Nations chose not to recognise that sexual violence took place during the attack on 7 October? Does she further share my horror at the testimony I heard from a woman who was responsible for looking at the bodies when they came into the mortuary? That woman talked about the greyness that confronted her, adding that every now and then there was a bit of shining colour, which was the nail varnish left on the bodies of people who had been sexually abused and then killed.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, and I heard that testimony too. On that very day, I had bright red nails, unlike the paler-coloured nails that I have today, and the testimony struck me in a profound way.
For months after the 7 October attacks, there was a deafening silence from many organisations and international agencies that are supposedly dedicated to addressing these kinds of crimes. The best that the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls could respond with initially was a very evasive expression of “concern” about
“reports of sexual violence that may have occurred since 7 October, committed by State and non-State actors against Israelis and Palestinians.”
Another organisation, UN Women, which is supposedly
“dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women,”
issued multiple statements following 7 October, none of which addressed Hamas’s sex crimes.
It is deeply concerning that that has been mirrored in the response of some progressive groups, some of which have refused to believe the testimony of eyewitnesses and sought to characterise evidence as “unverified accusations”, even though the evidence of organised and systematic planned attacks in different locations at the same time is clear. The choice made by many to downplay the testimonies of survivors and ignore the evidence about those who were murdered, which we have seen in conflicts around the world, shows just how far we still have to go to change attitudes, even among groups that purport to believe all women.
It is important to note that, although it is particularly stark in relation to the sexual assaults committed on 7 October—I cite that atrocity as it is the most recent example—the denial and dismissal of sexual assault in that conflict is not unique. Many conflicts receive less international attention and reports of sexual violence are often met with an international wall of silence or ineffective expressions of concern. In that regard, it is important to draw attention to the serious allegations of sexual violence reported by interlocutors in Ramallah who raised concerns about the treatment of Palestinians in detention, and in particular the use of sexual harassment and threats of rape during house raids and at checkpoints.
In both 2021 and 2022, the Democratic Republic of the Congo had the world’s highest number of verified cases of sexual violence against children committed by armed forces and armed groups, yet how many of us here today knew that? Well, perhaps more of us knew than is the case in other parts of society. So far, we have clearly failed to achieve the far-reaching change that the world needs. I believe that an important component of that is that sexual violence is seen as an unintended consequence of conflict, instead of a heinous act, in parallel with other war crimes.
Where do we go from here to address the issue? We must centre women’s voices in peace negotiations to help ensure that the victims of sexual violence in conflict receive recognition of the crimes against them, to ensure that crimes of sexual violence are recognised in parallel with other war crimes, and to provide alternative perspectives on the impact that conflict has. We must also hold to account Government initiatives such as the UK women, peace and security national action plan for 2023 to 2027, to ensure that its commitment to put women at the centre of conflict resolution peacebuilding programmes over the next five years is realised.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate and allowing me to intervene. There are 614 million women and girls living in conflict regions. Women often face disproportionate violence in those conflict zones. Sexual violence is often used against women in conflict, as the hon. Member has so powerfully set out. Does she agree that it is the UK’s moral obligation to provide humanitarian support and funding to help rebuild infrastructure in those conflict zones, and to increase our international aid to 0.7% of GNI?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with what she said. The UK needs to play a leading role in that regard.
The international community should work to create an international commission with the sole mandate of focusing on sexual violence in conflict. To the hon. Lady’s point, we would be leading the way on the matter. That idea has been pioneered by Baroness Helic, informed by her role helping to create the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, and inspired by the International Commission on Missing Persons. That was formed following an agreement during the G8 and has now transformed into a treaty-based body that works in more than 40 countries.
There are gaps in international architecture, which means that sexual violence is slipping through the net. Instruments used to achieve justice internationally are able to focus only on perpetrators at the highest levels, and national courts often experience limited resources or a lack of willingness. The proposed commission would perform a similar function to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which has the dual aims of ensuring the co-operation of Governments and others in addressing issues of missing persons, and providing technical assistance to Governments in locating, recovering and identifying missing persons.
The proposed commission would have a two-pronged approach. First, it would work with Governments and other international bodies to co-ordinate the deployment of experts in countries where sexual violence in conflict has occurred, to help collect vital evidence and record testimonies in a sensitive way, and build up local expertise. On 7 October, the primary focus of emergency services was responding to the heinous act of terror, which meant that forensic evidence of sexual violence diminished over time. Should a body such as the one that is proposed have existed, it could have played a key role in collecting that vital evidence in a timely but culturally sensitive manner, which would ultimately have helped refute all the denials.
Secondly, the commission would act as a centre for excellence, helping to drive forward forensic technology that could help in confirming the use of sexual violence and provide a space to share best practice, train and educate investigators, and discuss preventive strategies. I believe that such a body would provide the much-needed tools and joined-up co-operation required to hold perpetrators to account and bring victims justice. I believe that we must take these steps to prevent backsliding on the progress that has been made so far, to ensure meaningful justice for victims, to deter future crimes and to press for further international change that will make a difference.
We must take steps to address sexual violence in conflict, because those who have been victims of it, and those who will sadly, no matter what we do, become victims in future, cannot afford for us not to.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called so early in the debate, Sir Charles—I am used to jumping up, then sitting back down again. It is great to be here and I look forward to all the contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this debate. I will give examples and perspectives from across the world.
The violence that happens to ladies and young girls across the world is horrendous. It upsets me and makes me physically and emotionally annoyed. I shudder whenever I think of the things that happen. As Members of this House, we have a platform to raise awareness of significant human rights concerns. We are here to advocate for those who are subjected to some of the most extreme cases of violence that threaten their safety, freedom and dignity. For me, each of those three points is incredibly important.
This debate has been called at a time when the world is witnessing the highest number of violent conflicts since the second world war. I am a person of faith. The Bible talks about how there will be wars and rumours of wars. I never in my lifetime can remember as many wars and as many rumours of wars as there are now. That tells me that the Bible is an indication that the last times are coming. Perhaps that is something we should take note of.
That fact makes me shudder. Knowing that that entails a rise in conflict-based sexual violence affects me physically and emotionally. The UN verified that there were 3,688 cases of conflict-based sexual violence last year alone, a 50% increase from the previous year. Women and girls account for 95% of those cases and children account for 32%. How could anyone in this world carry out anything sexual against a child?
Sexual violence occurs in conflicts across the world, with the highest numbers recorded in Ethiopia and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I read some time ago that in Ukraine there were attacks on women and girls as young as eight years old and as old as 80. Can anyone envisage what that means? Those people must think they are Russian monsters, because that is what they are. They think it is okay to abuse girls and women whenever they want. That is the world we live in and why this debate is so important.
I look forward to hearing the contributions from the shadow Ministers, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for the SNP, and my good friend, the shadow Minister speaking for the Labour party, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). I often say that when she is in Westminster Hall, so am I. I thank her for her contributions in these debates, where she speaks with passion and belief. We will not be disappointed in the Minister’s response, so I look forward to his contribution as well.
I want to relate a story that is pertinent to this debate. I visited Israel the week after Easter. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West referred to the Nova music festival, which unnerved me a wee bit. I walked through the Nova music festival site where people were murdered, which really disturbed me. I met some of the families, including a mother, Amanda Damari. She told the story of her daughter, Emily, who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists and has not been heard of for the last three months.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined the case of what is happening. I will not dwell too much on the mum because we can understand what she was thinking, and perhaps what we were all thinking. Since that day, as I vowed I would do, I have made sure that Amanda, the mother, and Emily, the daughter, are very much on my prayer list. I am sure that they are on the prayer lists of many others as well. I am a great believer in prayer.
It would be remiss not to mention the men and boys subject to conflict-based violence. It has happened in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, but many countries do not include this demographic in the scope of their sexual violence legislation. Sexual violence against men and boys occurs most often within the context of detention and interrogation. Those are the examples I am aware of, although I am sure that there are many other circumstances in which it happens.
As a person of faith and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I feel obliged to draw attention to the vulnerability of religious minorities, which experience sexual violence in ongoing conflicts. It is terrible. Each time I comment on conflicts in countries across the world, I find that those of Christian faith or minority faith are in a position where they are victims of abuse—first, they are victims of human rights abuses, then they are abused because of their faith. The APPG speaks up for those with Christian faith, other faith or no faith. It is really important that we do so, and as chair of the APPG, I speak up regularly for all groups.
Militant groups and terrorist organisations often target members of opposing ethnic, religious or political groups. Those belonging to religious minority communities are often stripped of the freedom to exercise their faith in conflict-affected areas. People who are Christian or who are members of an ethnic minority automatically receive sexual abuse as well, because it makes them vulnerable and they are specifically targeted. That is something we must speak out about. Their religion provides them with identity and purpose, but during conflict it makes them particularly vulnerable to sexual violence.
A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Nigeria and meet the mother of Leah Sharibu, one of the wee schoolgirls who was kidnapped. She has never been released. About a month ago we heard rumours that she was going to be released, and we were hopeful, but unfortunately that fell through. Leah refused to renounce her faith as a Christian and convert to Islam. She was kidnapped by Boko Haram and forced to marry one of their fighters. The latest story is that Leah has three children and has been subjected to abuse over a number of years.
We met Leah’s mother, and her pain was palpable and deeply saddening. I witnessed how the pain of those subjected to sexual violence ripples through their families and communities. The case of all the young schoolgirls who were kidnapped—some of them are still held, including Leah Sharibu—underlines that. This experience has greatly affected me and motivates me to speak in today’s debate. Leah’s reality is an unfortunate reality for many girls, not only in Nigeria but worldwide, so it is important that we give voice to this debate, and we are all here to do that. I thank Members in advance for their contributions.
The UK is recognised as a global leader in promoting human rights, and we must utilise this role to advocate for those affected by conflict-based sexual violence. Where praise is due, I always give it—the same goes for criticising, which we do all too often—so I want to praise our Minister and Government for exhibiting excellent leadership in tackling conflict-related sexual violence by establishing the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. When I was in Israel, one of the Israeli lady MPs said that she wished to establish something similar in Israel. I put her in touch with some MPs—unfortunately they are not here today for various reasons—so she could come here and engage with them and try to press those things that are happening in Israel.
The PSVI’s goal to rally global action to end conflict-based sexual violence has led to the empowerment of other Governments to lead efforts in different areas on this issue—for instance, the example I gave of Israel and what we are doing here. Others have echoed the statement that the aid allocated is not nearly the amount needed to match the magnitude of the issue. Perhaps in summing up, the Minister could give us some indication of what has been done.
I thank the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for all it has done thus far. However, it is evident that more needs to be done to support those globally who are victimised on a daily basis. For all those young ladies and those girls and boys—maybe not in the same numbers—who have been sexually abused, we have a right to be their voice in this Westminster Hall debate. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for bringing the debate forward. It is incumbent on me to be here to support her because the subject matter, while difficult to talk about, is one that we cannot ignore.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles, and to speak in this incredibly important debate. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing today’s debate. Sexual violence is the most forgotten, and one of the most reprehensible, weapons of war. It is, as the United Nations has rightly stated, rarely simply the action of rogue soldiers but a deliberate planned tactic designed to terrorise, assert power and inflict lasting trauma and psychological scars. It has a particularly sickening attraction for its perpetrators. As Amnesty International put it,
“rape is cheaper than bullets”.
While the conflict in Bosnia saw the first ever convictions for mass rape as a war crime, that hardly seems to have served as a deterrent. In recent years, women and girls in Ukraine, northern Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been subjected to horrific sexual war crimes, but we have no hope of combating this evil if we cannot even acknowledge its existence, if we cannot agree that it must never be ignored, doubted or dismissed, and if we cannot recognise that rape is rape whatever the victim’s race, religion or nationality. That is why I want to briefly comment on the abhorrent acts of sexual violence committed by Hamas in its attack on southern Israel on 7 October. As we have heard, those were acts of exceptional brutality. As Meni Binyamin, head of the international crime investigations unit of the Israeli police, has suggested, they were
“the most extreme sexual abuses we have seen”
—truly horrifying acts of rape, sexual mutilation and torture.
An extensive investigation was carried out by The New York Times in December, which utilised video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with over 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape councillors. They all identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls were sexually assaulted and mutilated. They included the site of the Nova music festival, kibbutz Be’eri and kibbutz Kfar Aza. The attacks against women were not isolated events, The New York Times concluded, but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence. That confirms the analysis made by Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, an expert on family law and international women’s rights who works with Israeli women’s groups, that those were atrocities that the world, including those supposedly committed to human rights and the safety of women and girls, had decided to downplay and ignore. It took over seven weeks for the UN Secretary-General to call for an investigation into Hamas’s campaign of rape. It took UN Women, which says it is dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women, 50 days to even acknowledge that these crimes had occurred. Where was the sisterhood? Where were the feminists? “Me too, unless you’re a Jew.” Let the call come from this House today directly to those women: we are here to tell you that we see you, hear you and believe you.
I had the privilege of being present at the sitting of the UN Security Council where special representative Pramila Patten presented her report on the sexual violence that took place on 7 October. Describing her experience as unlike anything she had witnessed elsewhere in the world, Patten said:
“The world outside cannot understand the magnitude of the event”.
Her report outlined the desperate need and moral imperative for a humanitarian ceasefire to end the unspeakable suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.
If the conflict and violence overseas were not bad enough, we know that this has had a knock-on effect on the levels of violence against women and girls here in the UK, where Jewish Women’s Aid stands virtually alone among charities dedicated to combating violence against women in speaking out about those brutal events. I know from my discussions with the charity as the shadow Minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding that the accusations levelled at Israeli women—that they were lying about the brutal rapes and sexual violence that took place on 7 October—served to undermine confidence in the services that Jewish Women’s Aid offers.
As Deborah Lipstadt, the US special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, and Michelle Taylor, the US permanent representative to the UN Human Rights Council, have argued, this reaction is in stark contrast to the global gender-based violence movements’ typical emphasis on the importance of listening to, and believing, survivors’ accounts.
Sexual violence is seen as a weapon of war all over the globe. According to the national prosecutor’s office, over 200 accounts have been recorded of sexual abuse committed by Russians during its war on Ukraine, which have begun proceeding through Ukrainian courts. Since the start of the brutal armed conflict between the Sudan armed forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in mid-April 2023, conflict-related rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Sudan has increased significantly. As conflict escalates in Gaza and the middle east, UN experts describe credible allegations that Palestinian women and girls have been subject to sexual assault, including rape, and are calling for a full investigation. At least two Palestinian detainees have been raped, with others being subject to multiple forms of sexual assault and humiliation.
These brutal events are not confined to overseas and have led to a rise in incidents of Islamophobia and abuse here in the UK. Just yesterday I was told by police and Tell MAMA that since 7 October and the escalating conflict in the middle east, there has been a dramatic increase in incidents of domestic abuse in Muslim households reported to them right here in the UK. This once again demonstrates that British Muslim women have borne the majority of the brunt of anti-Muslim hate during this time.
The devastating truth is that sexual violence is commonplace in war, but this does not have to be the case. Let us be clear that rape and sexual violence must never be used as a weapon of war, and those seeking to capitalise on foreign events to spread hatred at home will not be allowed to get away with it. Preventative work is key to tackling this and I am pleased that work is already being done through initiatives that we have already heard of, such as the PSVI. Cross-departmental work like that is essential to tackling the issues. While we can do little to alleviate the suffering of victims, survivors and their families, we can stand here today and speak up on their behalf, acknowledging these devastating crimes, no matter where they are positioned on the globe. Victims and survivors deserve to be listened to, validated and believed.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and a true honour to be part of this debate, which I have a feeling is going to be this place at its best. It is at its best when it speaks for those who cannot yet be heard, and when it confronts difficult truths in our society and makes a plan to act. I suspect that the Minister shares our concern on this matter and so we are pushing at an open door, because, sadly, this is something we have seen for many years.
Let me start by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) in honouring Baroness Helic and her work on this matter, as well as thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She made such a powerful opening speech, and I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has just blown us all apart with her powerful call to action.
International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict is 19 June, so the Minister has a mere couple of weeks to agree and put in place what we shall decide today should happen in this House. But that should be a very easy task, because the asks are very simple. We must act, because we know that this is getting worse. I am not going to join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in suggesting that we are in the end of days just yet, although I respect that as part of his faith, but I recognise that we live in a very uncertain world. Six out of seven worldwide are plagued by a feeling of insecurity. We are facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the second world war, and 2 billion people —a quarter of all humanity—are therefore in places affected by those conflicts.
The challenge that we face here today is that, too often, sexual violence is seen as an inevitable consequence of such conflict—as day follows night, so women will be violated. That is not the case. Women are not mere collateral damage to conflict. The first thing that we must do in this House is to challenge that notion—that complacency—that it is part of the process so our challenge is to find a way just to stop it. No; we need to prevent it, and we prevent it by, first of all, recognising that it does not need to happen. It is chilling to me that many non-governmental organisations talk about how, for those who fight wars, sexual assault is seen as more destructive than using fire to damage a community, because the resulting damage lasts for generations.
We should recognise that, across the world, there are 15 conflict-related settings where there are active concerns that sexual-based violence is taking place—Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. There are also three post-conflict settings where we are, again, concerned that this is a very live issue—the western Balkans, Nepal and Sri Lanka. And there are three situations of concern where the UN thinks that further sexual violence may be taking place—Ethiopia, Haiti and Nigeria.
It is little wonder that more than 3,500 verified cases of sexual violence were reported last year alone—a 50% increase in this reporting cycle. The highest numbers are being reported in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I suggest that that is because those conflicts have been going on the longest, and therefore the capacity to record is the greatest. We should recognise the evidence, speak out for the victims across the world, and stand with them in the way that, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd has rightly said, we stand with those women in Israel and Gaza.
In Sri Lanka, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recognised that, during the conflict with the Tamil Tigers, there has been a horrific level of violation and abuse, including indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings and the use of torture and sexual violence. While it is difficult to get accurate numbers, we know that at least half a million women were raped during the Rwandan genocide, and 50,000 in the war in Bosnia.
We know that rape and sexual violence are the hallmarks of the military genocide for the Rohingya women. The Women’s League of Burma documented more than 100 cases of conflict-related sexual or gender-based violence during the coup. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, we also know that there is a growing but emerging evidence base from Ukraine that, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, since the start of 2014, Ukrainians—especially but not exclusively women and girls—are victims of rape, gang rape and forced nudity perpetrated by Russian military troops.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd is right; so often in these cases there is denial and dismissal, and we are seeing that in Israel right now—and actually we are seeing it in Gaza too, because there have been very credible reports. In this country, those of us who want to tackle violence against women start from a position where we believe, because we know how hard it is to come forward and report in the first place. So we believe until the evidence proves otherwise, but the evidence basis that we have got is very clear. I want to mention this because I know that there will be people watching this, and I have seen myself the querying, the questioning and the double-bluffing about whether or not sexual violence is taking place. The evidence basis of the special representative of the Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict included interviews with 34 individuals —survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders, and health and service providers. Some 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of footage of the attacks were also reviewed. These are not in-passing recollections; it has been a systematic approach to identifying what has happened.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) have stressed the organised nature of what happened on 7 October, but no one has yet said what the reason was for that. The principal reason, as far as I can see, was to try to goad the Israelis into precisely the sort of overreaction—thus alienating world opinion from their cause—as that on which they have subsequently embarked. So, if it can be proven that the mass rape and other sexual abuse was planned by the organisers of Hamas, does it not follow from that, that they, as well as the actual perpetrators of these attacks, must face retribution in the international courts eventually?
Stella Creasy
Many of us have consistently called for all allegations of war crime—and the use of sexual violence in war is a war crime: we should be absolutely clear about that—to be investigated. I want to go on to develop an argument around that. I would just say that it is really important, today of all days and in this debate of all debates, that we centre our thoughts on the victims of sexual violence, and do not go down some of the rabbit holes about whether this is a strategy in war. Because those who study these situations point out that sexual violence is not inevitable; it is not an inevitable tactic. There are decisions being made. By switching our focus, we deny the women the right to have their voices heard—women who require accountability and justice. If sexual violence is something that happens as a matter of course in a war, when you end the war you end the problem: job done. But as I said at the start, the challenge is not just to stop sexual violence but to prevent it, and to take it out of this arena altogether. So I hope the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will understand if I am very firmly focused on the evidence of sexual violence and assault in war and the challenge that we face from the work that the UN has done.
The UN has also recognised concerns in Palestine. The special rapporteur also went to Ramallah and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, she highlighted instances of sexual violence in the context of detention, particularly invasive body searches, beatings, including in the genital areas, and the threats of rape against women and family members.
My point is that none of this is inevitable.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with intent. She says that we have to hear women’s voices on this; I think we all hold that point in common. But does she agree that, important though it is, it is just not enough for us in Britain to pronounce here, in a debate in Westminster Hall, our horror and our anger and our determination to prevent this from happening? It is absolutely vital that the international institutions—the UN and others—give far greater priority to looking at sexual violence as wars evolve, rather than in retrospect, after a war has come to an end.
Stella Creasy
As ever, my right hon. Friend prefigures what I am going to argue, about that mindset change and that cultural change. There is this idea that as long as we stop the war, we stop the violence, and that is enough. It is not enough, and that is what we need to change.
I also want to recognise that this is not just about sexual violence by states. As I get older, I seem to find myself in more and more agreement with my colleague the hon. Member for Strangford—I do not know whether that is accidental or deliberate. He talked about Boko Haram. We have seen in conflicts around the world the use of violence by insurgent organisations. NGOs report that sexual violence often occurs in religious conflict, particularly in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where sexual violence is used to keep minority communities in their place.
Almost 10 years ago, ISIS seized huge swathes of Iraq and Syria and launched a genocidal campaign against the Yazidis in northern Iraq. Some 6,000 women and children were captured. To this day, half of them are still missing. The captive women and children were used for sexual slavery and trafficking. One of the most horrifying points for me about the Yazidi community and how they deal with the trauma is that those women who are still missing, and who are not presumed dead, are considered to have stayed displaced because they are staying with children who have been the product of rape. They face an impossible choice of being separated from their children if they return to freedom.
Boko Haram is a good example of where women have been brutalised by insurgents and then further brutalised by the state, and stigmatised by Government state action. In Nigeria, the governor of Borno state, Kashim Shettima, publicly warned that those women who had become pregnant by Boko Haram fighters could breed a new generation of terrorists, and advocated for those women to be educated not to bring up their children to be terrorists. That is the cycle of blame and shame continuing on.
It is also not just women and girls who are risk; again, the hon. Member for Strangford is absolutely right. There is evidence from the Red Cross that there is sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys, and particularly against LGBTQI people in humanitarian settings, and also against refugees. One of the most depressing studies you will ever read shows that approximately one in five refugees who are displaced women have experienced sexual violence as part of fleeing a conflict zone.
We condemn without reservation those who question whether sexual violence happens. We condemn without reservation any of those people who seek to minimise it or say it is less of an issue in some conflicts than in others. It is an issue in all of them. That matters because over 90% of survivors of sexual violence do not report it to the police or officials in those conflict zones because of their lack of faith that anything will happen. That is understandable when we look at the mixed record of our action, which is where my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is absolutely right.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda does not reflect the high levels of sexual violence that we know happened in that conflict in its record for action. In contrast, after what happened in the former Yugoslavia, 93 individuals were indicted. Some 44 of those were for crimes involving sexual violence. Of those 44, 29 were convicted, representing a 69% conviction rate.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I will call the final speaker at 3.18 pm, so she has a couple of minutes.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
No, you are giving a wonderful speech. It is just that I have to get the last speaker in.
Stella Creasy
Absolutely. Let me say just a few things. First, sexual violence when it happens in conflict is not an accident. It is deliberate. Whether it is organised or happens progressively, it is not an accident. Secondly, it is not inevitable. Analysis of sexual violence in conflict over the last 45 years shows that it has been different in different conflicts. For example, rape was widespread in the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste, but far less likely in El Salvador. That is why we have to break the cycle, and we break the cycle only by saying that it matters.
My appeal to the Minister is for the UK to demand an explicit accountability mechanism for the allegations of sexual violence in Israel and Palestine as part of the peace process. Let us not brush this under the carpet. Let us not say that once the conflict has been resolved—we all desperately want that urgent ceasefire—that is enough. Let us have accountability for all these mechanisms.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Mitchell
I just wanted to say that the UK has made an offer to Israel and Palestine to support evidence gathering and technical support on the issue of conflict-related sexual violence, as per the report of the special representative of the Secretary-General, Ms Patten.
Stella Creasy
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. Will he also clarify that the UK has made representations with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court for a specific criminal tribunal process for this conflict to be part of the ceasefire negotiations, so that all actors, including Hamas, Israel, and the third-party actors who are supporting the peace process, recognise it, respect it, contribute to it and prioritise it?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I imagine that will be answered in the wind-ups.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am pleased that we are having this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing it, and on the way she introduced it by talking about the horrors of violence against women on 7 October in Israel, and the violence against women and children going on in the continuing conflict in Gaza and in other parts of the world.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) quite correctly pointed out, the time to investigate, if possible, is while the conflict is going on. We should at least preserve evidence during a conflict so far as that is possible, but that is never particularly easy. In her opening lines, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West pointed out the levels of conflict around the world and the prevalence of sexual violence, particularly against women and children, in all wars going on at the present time, including those in Yemen and Ukraine, and in other conflicts going back, such as Vietnam. It is sadly not a new situation, but it is one that we have to address and do everything we can about.
I will particularly refer to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have many constituents from there and they have often talked to me about it. In the few minutes I have, I will quote from the report on the DRC given by Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the Human Rights Council only a couple of months ago on 4 March. He said:
“I fear that the enjoyment of human rights in the country has come to a grinding halt...The absence of State authority over large swathes of territory has also cleared the way for brutal levels of violence and attacks. The insecurity is being fuelled by a seemingly impassable mountain of challenges: from large-scale corruption, to the unbridled race between multiple parties to take control and exploit the country’s wealth of natural resources, to ongoing violent land disputes...Between 1 October 2023 and 15 March 2024, the UN Joint Human Rights Office documented 2,110 human rights violations and abuses throughout DRC. Of these, 59 per cent were committed by armed groups…Almost half of these violations and abuses were committed in the North Kivu province…The UN Joint Human Rights Office has documented 156 people who were summarily executed at the hands of the M23. M23 was also found to have sexually abused 30 women and 12 children”.
Amnesty International goes on to report that 38,000 cases of sexual violence were reported in North Kivu during the first quarter of 2023—that is in the first three months of last year. In May 2023, Doctors Without Borders said that levels of sexual violence in internally displaced camps around Goma reached an unprecedented “catastrophic scale”. The UN Population Fund says that between 2021 and 2022, there was a 91% rise in reports of gender-based violence in North Kivu province, and its mobile clinic reports on the number of people it is trying to assist who are victims of that violence. The situation is unbelievably appalling.
A report by the TG Foundation in a study by the American Journal of Public Health, published in June 2011, stated that 48 women were raped per hour in the Congo, which would mean that since the start of the war with Rwanda, an estimated 12.5 million Congolese women have been raped. The report goes on to demand action by international Governments over the behaviour of the Congolese Government, armed forces and armed groups, and over the relationship between Rwanda, the Congolese Government and the mineral companies.
I want to put on record that, having on several occasions visited the DRC, I have never forgotten arriving in Goma after a very complicated journey by road from Kigali. It was almost dark, and we went to a women’s centre—by that time, it was completely dark—and the audience waiting for our small delegation were 300 or 400 women, all of whom had been victims of rape. They wanted some degree of closure on the horror of their experience, if that is possible, and some degree of international recognition of the horrors they were going through, where the armed groups routinely used rape as a weapon of war.
Behind the violence is the thirst for minerals in the Congo, the search for cobalt and coltan, and the use of child labour, as well as the exploitation of women, in doing that. The international mining companies wash their hands of this and pretend that they are buying the vital minerals from responsible sources. They are not; they are buying them second hand from the exploited children and others who have suffered in the Congo. We have to put this issue in the wider context of insecurity there.
We are very proud in Islington to have a councillor who comes from the Congo, Michelline Safi-Ngongo. She just sent me a message—it is quite long, so I will not read it all—saying,
“Loss of income and high food insecurity can lead to spiking violence, abuse”.
She goes on to say that the high incidence of abuse reflects the gender inequality and poverty of so many people in the DRC.
When the Minister replies, I hope he will say what we are also doing about the breakdown of any form of law or process in the Congo to try to protect women and children from the violence, and what demands we are making of the mineral companies—in this country, Switzerland, China and elsewhere—that are buying minerals knowing they have been produced in the most appalling circumstances. The victims are women who have no means of protecting themselves—no defence whatsoever—so rape has become a pandemic of violence against women in the DRC. I hope we can reflect that in the policies we pursue.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank everyone who has taken part, especially the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who secured the debate. I also thank the staff team of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who provided me with some information in advance of the debate.
We have heard already that sexual-based violence is increasing in conflict zones and that at a time when we should be moving forward, we are moving backwards. This is a difficult and uncomfortable subject to talk about, but it is incredibly important that we do talk about it. It is incredibly important that we do highlight the issues that are being faced around the globe, particularly by women and girls. I am really pleased to hear that we are standing together on this as a House—that we are saying that this is illegal, immoral and unacceptable, and that we will all work together and support the Government in taking action to eradicate this violence. It feels to me that we are speaking with one voice in this regard: that we do not believe this should be allowed to continue.
I want to talk about a number of things. I will try to do what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) did by centring victims and their views. Although I may mention a few individual situations and countries, everybody who commits war crimes—regimes or individuals —should be held to account for those crimes, no matter who is committing them and no matter who they are being committed against. We should be considering every single case as incredibly important. I agree again with the hon. Member about the explicit accountability for sexual crimes in Israel and Palestine; that is key and I was pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Let me turn to reporting and the mechanisms around reporting sexual violence. We must ensure that we increase reporting, the ability for individuals to report and the safety of making those reports. We know that in Afghanistan, when the Taliban came in, women who had reported being victims of sexual violence were at risk of being attacked again and of being ostracised by their communities, because the Taliban dismantled the systems and protections that had been in place around them. That is completely and totally unacceptable. The UK should be using whatever powers it has and it can—whether soft powers or more extreme powers—to ensure that the protections in any country in relation to sexual violence reporting stay, no matter which regime is in charge, and that those victims are protected or safe from those situations.
The debate has emphasised the importance of supporting the universal application of human rights and the developments in the rule of law. We should do everything that we can as an international power to ensure that no one who comes forward faces reprisals for reporting and coming forward. Otherwise, how can we have the clearest possible picture of what is happening, and how can we ensure that we are using the powers that we have to prevent that from happening in any conflict?
As a number of different people mentioned, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), women and girls are disproportionately impacted in crises. Sexual violence is often used in conflict and in post-conflict zones; it is important to say that refugees and those who are displaced are also at risk and continue to be at risk, even though they may have escaped that war zone. There are so many people who are displaced just now, and we need to ensure that they are being protected in whatever scenario they are in and whatever country they are hiding in. In Afghanistan, there is evidence to suggest that sexual violence is being used as an interrogation tool against detained women. That is torture that these women are facing, and we should be doing what we can to condemn that violence towards women.
A number of people mentioned Boko Haram. The countries of origin in my constituency go UK, Polish, Romanian and Nigerian, so I have a significant number of Nigerian constituents, some of whom have family members who have been affected by the actions of Boko Haram. A third of the schoolgirls who were abducted 10 years ago are still in captivity, still in sexual slavery and still in domestic servitude. They now have children in those horrific situations, but they cannot find a sensible way out that ensures that they can protect their children and also have their freedom. Mention has been made of the 3,000 Yazidis, many of whom have experienced sexual violence and who are still missing and in a very similar situation. We should never be quiet about that; we should continue to raise what has happened and what is happening and to condemn those who have taken these women and girls away from their families.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West talked about the horrific sexual violence that occurred on 7 October. A number of others mentioned that it was planned and systemic, and in some ways it is even more horrific because of the planning that went on behind it. For every one of the women, girls or men who were targeted, the ripples go far beyond what happened that day. Sexual violence is not something that just affects someone during the initial crime and is then forgotten. We must try our best to prevent these things, and we must do what we can to condemn them, but we must also put in place support afterwards so that people can recover as best they can. We must also support regimes so that they can put that protection around victims of sexual violence—
Kirsty Blackman
Yes, the ones who did survive—absolutely. But we also need to ensure, where people are still in a hostage situation, that they get the support they need once they are freed so that they can get through that.
The situation in the west bank has escalated, and there are issues with women and girls being disproportionately impacted. Violence and conflict increase the structural inequalities that already exist, and we know that women and girls are already disadvantaged and that any conflict situation means they are further disadvantaged. Everything relating to sexual violence—including rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy and forced marriages—is used as a weapon of war. Those things are used to genocide communities.
Lastly, because I know I do not have much time, Sir Charles, we need to do what we can to support women’s leadership and that the UK Government need to take action. Women have a leading role to play, not just in rebuilding communities, but in brokering peace and in ensuring that systems and support mechanisms are in place and that women’s voices are heard. In too many countries around the world, women do not have that platform and are not able to make the case for other women. I would also like the UK Government to look specifically at the UN report on sexual violence and to integrate gender analysis into planning and responding to emergencies and conflicts, because we know about the structural inequalities involved.
I have far more I could have said, but I will end by mentioning the work being done by the Scottish Government to ensure that their aid money is used to support and empower women and girls whenever it can be. From 2016 to 2018, gender-based violence aid funding was only 0.1% of total humanitarian funding. That is grim when we know the situation that so many women and girls are in right now.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you as our Chair, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for bringing forward this important debate. She made an absolutely excellent contribution, and it has been a good debate.
As we have heard, horrific sexual violence continues to be used as a weapon of war in conflicts around the world. Across the House, we are absolutely united in our opposition to that practice, no matter where it occurs and who the perpetrators are. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for creating time for us to talk not just about this utter horror and the damage it does, but about how we can play our part in supporting solutions.
I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I focus on a few of the African contexts where we continue to see sexual violence used as a weapon on a truly appalling scale. I will start with the ongoing generals’ war against the people of Sudan—against the women and the girls of Sudan. There have been 5,000 reports of grave violations in Sudan, including sexual violence, but that is likely to be an underestimate, given that 60,000 survivors of sexual violence in conflict have been identified in Sudan as of June 2023, which is almost a year ago.
Sexual violence by armed men has been reported in areas across Sudan, with many different groups targeted. In Khartoum, Sudanese women, girls and whole families have been raped in their homes and in the street. In Darfur, targeted sexual violence against the Masalit people and other non-Arab Darfuris has formed a major component of the ethnic cleansing campaigns. The link between racism, misogyny and the political agenda of some armed groups in Darfur has been evidenced again and again. Women who are attacked are labelled “slaves”, using racist slurs. I would just like to quote from an Al-Jazeera report that sums up the utterly chilling mentality of these rapists:
“After [we] rape [you], you will carry our babies […] to change the non-Arab portion within the Sudanese blood”.
These patterns of targeted violence against women and girls in Khartoum and Darfur are mostly attributed to the Rapid Support Forces or their allied forces. The UN reported in February that one victim was held by the RSF and gang-raped repeatedly for 35 days. The sheer horror of it! As a woman, I honestly cannot comprehend how one might survive that. There are also continued reports of sexual violence being used to intimidate women’s rights activists, and that is often attributed to the Sudanese armed forces.
The healthcare system has almost entirely collapsed. Few of the women victimised through rape can access the immediate support needed to deal with physical and mental trauma, the risks of infection or the risks of pregnancy. The UN has reported that women who have tried to access abortion have been denied it because Sudan’s 90-day legal window to obtain an abortion in the case of rape had passed. We must continue to work together against the stigmatisation of children born following rape and to argue for universally accessible abortion for all women who face these terrible circumstances.
We need to redouble our efforts to stop the generals’ war in Sudan and to support forces for sustainable peace and justice, because right now in Darfur hundreds of thousands remain trapped in the city of El Fasher, under siege, in famine conditions and with the imminent threat of attack by the RSF. This is already an atrocity. How many more women and children will be targeted for rape and violence if El Fasher falls? The international community must surely act now to protect the civilians trapped in that city, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something about the Government’s plans for action and what immediate further steps the UK might take.
Sadly, the horrors I have described in Sudan are familiar from other recent and continued conflicts, as we have heard. I have spoken many times about the large-scale and often ethnically targeted sexual violence that was evidenced in Ethiopia during the Tigray war. UN experts have estimated that this conflict has left 10,000 survivors of sexual violence, mostly women and girls, with very limited support. If he is able to, will the Minister therefore update us on the Government’s engagement with Ethiopia over the process of accountability for these abuses? Sadly, the threat is far from over, because conflicts between ethnically organised armed groups continue in many areas of Ethiopia, including Amhara, Tigray, Haramaya and the south-west.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned in his contribution, the threat to women and girls is even greater in the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly among the hundreds of thousands of civilians forcibly displaced by the M23’s advance—that is the M23 for which there is credible evidence of material Rwandan support.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned that issue. The reality is that 7 million people in the Congo have been displaced. The world’s media barely recognise that—it barely registers on their scale—but it is probably the greatest abuse of human rights anywhere in the world at present.
Ms Brown
I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from and I utterly agree.
Let me quote the heartbreaking words of a 15-year-old girl called Florence:
“One of them took me by force, strangled me, and”
they
“raped me one after another. He had strangled me so much that I no longer had the strength to scream.”
The rape survivors supported by Save the Children in the DRC are as young as nine years old. The impact on children, women, families and communities is enormous. We cannot be content with just raising our voices repeatedly against these atrocities; we need a clear strategy for how the UK can play its part. For me, preventing sexual violence must be integral to the wider approach to conflicts and violence.
These horrific cases, whether in Sudan, Ethiopia or the DRC, do not end at those countries’ borders; they spill over into the wider region and undermine security for many communities. To truly prevent that, we have to recognise how it works politically. The perpetrators are individual men—soldiers, commanders and politicians —but their violence can take hold only because the state fails to stop it. Ultimately, this will stop only when there are robust state institutions, justice systems to hold people to account, and security forces that protect communities, rather than bearing responsibility themselves for the violations.
In contexts such as Sudan, there are no trustworthy state authorities that play that part, so we have to be smarter in the way we act. We have to look beyond the easy options of international NGOs and expensive consultants and to be far more open to working directly with small local organisations. In Sudan, there are many women’s groups and other local organisations that are opposed to both military factions. They are a force for peace, democracy and justice, and at the same time they provide support to survivors of rape in their own communities. My main question to the Government today is, why are we not doing more to support them? Why are we not supporting the Sudanese women who challenge the power of the generals—the men who have plunged the country into this nightmare and put millions of sisters in such dire risk? Why do we not recognise that building the capacity of local organisations is a strategic intervention in the UK’s interests?
We cannot see this issue in terms of silos. It is a humanitarian and medical response. It is development. It is accountability and justice. It is diplomacy and sanctions. It is peacebuilding. It is all those things. Let’s face it, our resources are limited and the challenges in regions such as the horn of Africa are massively complex and interconnected. It is more important to break down the barriers and recognise that, unless our interventions help to solve many challenges simultaneously, they will not be effective. They will not support our efforts to build strong partnerships for mutual benefit in Africa, and they will not genuinely help to prevent this horrific form of abuse, which continues to blight our world.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to appear before you once again, Sir Charles.
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who represents an area where I first stood for Parliament 41 years ago, for securing this debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. She made an excellent speech. I will not only try to respond to much of what she said but look at all the ideas she put forward and write to her afterwards about any that I do not cover. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions of all Members and will try to respond to the points raised. This has been an outstanding debate and I feel privileged to try to respond to it for the Government.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings so much to these debates, said that he has never known so much violence and misery in the world as he sees today. The fact that there is so much violence and misery is one of the reasons why Britain has put aside £1 billion this year to meet humanitarian need, and I am grateful to him for recognising that the UK is a global leader in that respect.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made an outstanding speech. She spoke up about the horrendous events of 7 October and about the lack of response by parts of the international community. She called for the immediate release of the hostages and spoke with great feeling when she said that the phrase “Me too, unless you’re a Jew” has resonated with parts of the community. She also spoke with great eloquence about Ukraine and Sudan. The House will be grateful for what she said and I hope that many people who are not able to be here will read her powerful contribution.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the importance of the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, which is 19 June. She also talked about the importance of focusing directly on the victims of this dreadful violence and made the point, which the whole House will echo, that there can be no impunity.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former leader of the Labour party, spoke about the DRC, Goma and the terrible humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded for years in the Kivus, an area I have visited on a number of occasions in the last 20 years, as has he. The Government urge all the military forces there to lay down their arms and support the various different political processes, particularly in Nairobi and Rwanda, to try to ensure that there is a political track to end the terrible violence. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what more can be done on minerals. He will know of the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Government want more effort to be made in that respect to follow and track minerals.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that this is a difficult subject to talk about, but then did so very well. Again, she spoke about there being no tolerance of impunity, and about the terrible legacy of the teenagers and young women who were taken by Boko Haram. She also talked about the role of women, including the voice of women in conflict resolution, the work to end GBV and—again—the importance of ensuring that there is accountability.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke for the Opposition about the whole of this subject, but in particular about Sudan and the terrible events there, including the particular role Britain has through the troika and through holding the pen on Sudan at the UN. She also talked about Darfur and the dreadful situation in al-Fashir, about which the Government have spoken up, and the clear evidence of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The demands of the international community are that the troops should return to barracks and enable the humanitarians to operate in those dreadful circumstances, and to open up a political track as soon as possible. Britain is supporting the collection of evidence through open-source means, and we will make sure that that evidence is retained for future use.
The hon. Lady also talked about the situation in Ethiopia. Britain supports the Pretoria agreement and we have done a lot of work to help to head off famine conditions, including in Geneva just a few weeks ago, where we supported a replenishment at a conference that I co-chaired with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, and which raised $610 million. The hon. Lady also talked about the harrowing evidence and work of NGOs such as Save the Children.
I am sure the entire House agrees that conflict-related sexual violence, or CRSV, is not an inevitable consequence of war. It is morally abhorrent and illegal and does not discriminate. It affects women and girls, and men and boys too, as we have heard, and has devastating consequences, yet it continues to take place in conflicts around the world and is often used as a deliberate tactic to terrorise entire communities. We are witnessing its horrific impacts in Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to name just a few.
The whole House was particularly horrified by the reports, which have been mentioned today, of sexual violence on and since 7 October. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West spoke eloquently about that in her opening remarks, as did the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and about the appalling violence perpetrated by Hamas on that day.
Mr Mitchell
I am afraid not because of the time, but if I have a second at the end, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will give way.
We have clearly and unequivocally condemned all allegations of reports of CRSV in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and led calls for a UN Security Council debate on that specific issue. We continue to call for thorough investigations, for hostages to be released immediately and for detainees to be treated with dignity and in line with international law. We have also, on a number of occasions, including at the UN Security Council, offered PSVI expertise and tools to help to ensure that victims and survivors of CRSV receive the support they need.
It is 12 years since the launch of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. For their tireless efforts I pay tribute to Lord Ahmad, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict; Lord Hague, who started the UK’s exceptional focus on the issue; and Baroness Helic. The UK is at the forefront of the fight to end this heinous crime, and I will briefly highlight five steps to demonstrate the impact of our work.
First, since 2012 we have used our influence and convening power to draw global attention to the issue. For example, at the PSVI conference that we hosted in London two years ago we brought together over 1,000 delegates, including survivors, experts, states and multilateral organisations. I personally led several sessions at that meeting and collectively we succeeded in getting 54 countries to sign an ambitious political declaration to deliver change.
At the conference we also announced the international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Lord Ahmad launched the alliance last year, and it brings together a range of global actors to prevent and respond to CRSV. Its membership continues to grow and it now has 26 members, including Governments, multilateral organisations, civil society and survivors. We are working closely with the current chair, Colombia, to drive action through the alliance. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, backed by £12.5 million, with four clear objectives: to strengthen global response, prevent sexual violence in conflict, promote justice and support survivors.
Secondly, we are coming up with creative solutions to prevent these crimes. For example, Britain’s flagship What Works: Impact at Scale programme is encouraging and supporting innovative ideas. We have invested £67.5 million into the second phase of the programme. That is the biggest global commitment by any Government to prevent gender-based violence.
Thirdly, we are setting a global benchmark by giving survivors a say in the decisions that affect them. Britain has appointed two PSVI survivor champions, Kolbassia Haoussou and Nadine Tunasi, and established a survivor advisory group to put survivors’ voices at the heart of policy proposals. Since 2018 we have committed almost £8 million to the global survivors fund to provide psychosocial and educational support for survivors. We know how important it is to ensure that we gather information from survivors safely, which is why two years ago we launched the Murad code with the Yazidi human rights activist and Nobel prize winner Nadia Murad, to collect information responsibly and ethically.
Fourthly, we are working to make these crimes punishable by law. Impunity may be the global norm, but that is unacceptable. The UK is taking steps to change that, and we have made some progress. We sanctioned 14 perpetrators over the last two years and we are boosting the capacity of countries to investigate and prosecute these crimes. In Ukraine, for example, we are supporting the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the crimes effectively.
We are also backing the draft UN crimes against humanity convention to make the global legal framework stronger and more effective, and we are working with the International Criminal Court to help survivors to engage with courts using technology. I am grateful to Baroness Helic, who is helping us to find new, innovative solutions to tackle impunity, but I agree that we still have a long way to go.
I want to share two examples of the tangible impact we have had on the ground. Since 2012, we have deployed our PSVI team of experts times across the world over 90. These highly trained independent individuals provide direct support to national and international bodies. They have helped to plan missions, convened workshops and supported Governments to execute their projects. UK programmes have also contributed to vital recent legislative changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The changes will advance the rights of survivors and children born of CRSV—for example, by enabling them to access finance for higher education.
To conclude, the five steps that I have highlighted show that we have come a long way and that our work matters, but there can be no doubt, particularly given what we have heard today, that we need to go further still and ensure that our efforts are bearing fruit. We are making progress, and the UK will continue to drive sustained, united and innovative action globally. That is the only way we can consign conflict-related sexual violence to the history books.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the Minister agree that the mass rapes on 7 October were not a biproduct of the attack but an integral part of the plan to provoke Israel? If that is proven, does it not mean the people who planned the attacks, as well as the perpetrators themselves, must be held to account in the international courts?
Mr Mitchell
I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend says about accountability. On 7 October there was the greatest murder of Jewish people at any time in one day since the holocaust and the end of the second world war. The impact of that, which we have heard about so graphically today, underlines why it is so important that we continue this work. We are making progress, above all because we have unity, drive and support in all parts of the House. That gives Britain a particular locus and focus internationally to make sure that this work is effectively pursued.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank all speakers and echo what has been said about this consensual and important debate. I thank the Minister for his contribution, and I join him in thanking Baroness Helic and the work of the PSVI. The five measures he outlined are welcome, but I would still suggest that an international commission is needed to lead on this work, including those measures, and that women’s voices and survivors of sexual violence in conflict especially should be included in any peace negotiations in conflict areas. That is needed if we are going to start to find a way through for the survivors and ensure that their voices are heard.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made an important point in his last intervention about the most recent conflict, the intentions behind it and the way it was carried out. I agree that it was intentional, although this can be seen in all conflicts, as has been discussed this afternoon. I thank everyone for an excellent debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the prevention of sexual violence in conflict.
Royal Bank of Scotland Branch Closures
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Royal Bank of Scotland branch closures.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. Here we are again. This debate feels a bit like groundhog day. Yet more bank branches are set to bite the dust as the network rapidly shrinks, amid woolly promises of support and training for vulnerable customers. Selective statistics are spun to show that counter services just are not being used enough, leaving most of us puzzled when we see the local branch still bustling with life. That is certainly the case for the Leith Royal Bank of Scotland branch.
I confess that I am surprised that I have had to secure this debate, because I represent an area that was well served by banks until recent days. More often, I have supported the work of Members from rural areas who have fought valiantly against the impact of closures in their communities, but with both RBS and TSB planning to shut up shop, the Bank of Scotland looks set to be the last high street branch in Leith—and who knows for how long? When even the most densely populated part of Scotland is down to the last bank standing, we know we are in trouble.
I first pay tribute to the incredible staff at the RBS branch in Leith, who have been left worrying for their futures after this closure was announced. They are a legendary bunch, well known for going above and beyond for their customers and providing that old-fashioned notion of top-notch customer service. The branch is a well-known and well-used fixture in the area, and it should remain to serve the people of Leith into the future. It is located in a vibrant and growing—my goodness, is it growing—part of the city, and it serves diverse banking needs, from the many small start-ups that rely on cash, to people who are more financially vulnerable and cannot easily head uptown, so I find the decision absolutely baffling.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady touches on something common to many of us in Edinburgh, where 70% of the bank branches have been closed down in the past few years. This morning, I heard from a constituent in the Newbridge village who is being hit very hard by the closure of the RBS branch there. Her autistic son needs cash every day, and she will now have to get a bus to a different part of the city to get it for him because there is no post office available either. Does the hon. Lady agree that we cannot allow this situation to go on?
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree, and I will be making those points in my speech. The hon. Lady’s example perfectly illustrates exactly why branches need to remain open, and banks must be encouraged to do that.
These further closures from RBS are a particular disappointment, because that once-proud Scottish brand, which is now a subsidiary of NatWest, can trace its origins to Edinburgh in 1727, at the time of the Scottish enlightenment. It is credited with providing the world’s first overdraft—a mixed blessing, perhaps—and it created a wide branch network as part of Scotland’s successful and stable multi-bank system. Times may have changed, but the move towards more centralised control of banking does not seem like progress to me. For RBS to soon have just three city centre branches in Edinburgh is a sorry state of affairs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is consistent, and I am here to support her. In my constituency, the Ulster Bank, which is a subsidiary of RBS, closed its Ballynahinch branch last February, and it now intends to close the neighbouring Downpatrick branch in November. Does she agree that the abdication of the duty of care to rural banks is unacceptable at a time when profits are so high? Legislation underlining that duty of care should come before this House, as the current guidelines are not providing safeguards.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. Ms Brock, are you happy, as the mover of the motion in a half-hour debate, to take interventions? You do not have to.
Deidre Brock
Yes, Sir Charles. A number of people expressed interest in being here and talking about branch closures in their areas, so I have allowed for that in my timing.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I will make some points about that later. The impacts on rural areas are particularly stark and I am very much aware of them, having been part of the Scottish Affairs Committee that conducted an inquiry.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
In my constituency, Frome—with a population of 30,000 people —will lose its last bank. It follows in the footsteps of other market towns in my area: Castle Cary, Martock and Wincanton. Many of my elderly constituents are very worried that they will lose their physical, face-to-face contact with their banks. Does the hon. Member agree that, to combat the loss of bank branches, we must support communities by triggering the development of community banking hubs that safeguard people’s right to face-to-face contact with their banks, particularly in rural areas?
Deidre Brock
Absolutely, and I will make some points about that later.
I say, with a heavy dose of sarcasm, that banks cannot be expected to cut their profits and serve their customers when they have shareholders to please, even when—in the case of RBS—taxpayers bailed them out when they needed it and still own a third of the business. How often can we in this place bemoan bank branch closures while the Government sit on their hands and refuse to meaningfully intervene? The speedy decline in branches is alarming: almost 6,000 have gone, across the UK, at a rate of 54 a month since 2015. Do we just accept sleepwalking into a cashless society and the deepening of the digital divide? Should we all be forced into using systems that may go against our very human preferences for face-to-face services just because it is cheaper for the banks? What kind of society do we want to be? A society that looks out for everyone, or a society where markets rule and only the fittest survive?
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She is right: it is like groundhog day. How many times in the last nine years have we discussed this issue in this Chamber? Banking in rural Scotland has been decimated, particularly around Argyll and Bute: recently, the RBS branch in Helensburgh announced its closure. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial institutions are abdicating responsibility to the people who were forced to dig deep to bail them out during the crash? Once again we are seeing those banks putting shareholder dividend ahead of any form of social responsibility.
Deidre Brock
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely correct. I think everyone else here agreed with him as well.
Existing legislation to protect against bank branch closures is far too weak. The Financial Conduct Authority has some powers to protect cash services but not bank branches. Yet, in 2019, the FCA’s own research found that bank branch closures presented particular challenges for older people who would have to travel further to reach a branch. It also said that older people were less likely to turn to mobile banking, which increased their risk of financial exclusion. But it seems the banks can just follow the tick-box guidance and then fire ahead with the closure anyway. We must introduce a community right to physical banking services. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) to introduce a Bill for such a measure. I hope for cross-party consensus to take forward something similar.
I am curious to hear whether the Minister thinks bank branch closures conflict with the Equality Act 2010—specifically part 3, which states that service providers must ensure equal access to services for all individuals? We already have all the evidence we need of the impact on communities, on older people, on people with disabilities, and on small businesses that rely on cash trade.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
There are banks that say that they are offering another service because they will work with banking hubs, but those banking hubs are not there all the time. They work just the hours that suit them, so they do not give accessibility to all. It just suits the banks to tick a box to say that they are available.
Deidre Brock
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and there are delays around those hubs, which I will reference later in my speech.
Research from Which? Found that 65% of consumers would find life difficult without the option to access their bank branch. Age UK says that four out of 10 over-65s do not manage their money online. We also know that paper documents are just preferred by many people, and can help them keep track of their finances better.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate, and for being incredibly generous in giving way so much during a half-hour debate. She has mentioned selective statistics being spun. The Rutherglen branch is also earmarked for closure. I stood outside it and heard, particularly from older people, that they were being told to go into the branch to use the app. This then generated statistics to make it appear as though people were transferring from using physical tools to digital tools, even though they had gone into the branch. Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem is that the bank has been dressing up statistics about branch use to try to sell the argument that it should close the branch?
Deidre Brock
There was a chorus of agreement behind me then, as the hon. Member will have heard. I think that it is felt that some of these statistics are being massaged to suit the bank’s purposes. That is certainly the impression that many of us has gained.
I am not immune to the financial pressures and challenges facing high street banks. Digital banking is cheaper and more convenient, at least when people can get their password to work and for it to recognise their face. It is used by the majority of us, but it is not for everyone, and minorities matter. RBS told me that
“80% of our active current account holders now use our digital services”,
but what about the one in five who do not? A lot of people are being left adrift, losing their financial independence. I accept that keeping branches open is costly, so there need to be greater initiatives to encourage banks to stay in town. Banking hubs, as has been mentioned, have been positively received. They are not a replacement for branches, but they are a helpful option for some places, offering a more personal and private space for banking than post offices alone.
But where are they all? The roll-out may be picking up a bit now, but so far it has been woefully slow. Since 2015, almost 635 branches have closed in Scotland, yet only nine hubs have opened and only 15 sites have been recommended as suitable in Scotland since the trials ended in 2021. At best, that only scratches at the surface of the problems created by the loss of our branch networks. While any community can apply to be considered for a hub, not so many will be successful, as Link has to independently assess the needs of the location using the same strict criteria for all.
Many feel they do not replace the need to access physical bank branches. Yes, post offices have increasingly provided access to cash withdrawals and deposits, but otherwise they offer only limited services. In 2020, Citizens Advice found major issues surrounding the post office’s ability to provide even those services, which included limited training on personal and business banking, cash supply issues and security concerns. For many, a bank branch offers access to the wider economic network, where people can seek financial advice and make enquiries about other financial products such as mortgages. These services cannot be provided by the post office and alongside this, the post office’s ability to fill the gaps left by branch closures is limited because of reductions over the years in the number of post offices themselves.
Perhaps the criteria of the bank hubs proposal need to be loosened up a little. Perhaps communities should not have to wait until the last branch leaves their town or area before banking hubs will even be considered, then face lengthy delays before anything gets going. With co-ordinated efforts from everyone involved, locally and nationally, surely we can get the roll-out widened and accelerated to better fill the digital divide that is deepening every day. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The hon. Lady is right about the need to look at the criteria for community banking hubs. My constituency has been left with one bank in one town, Ammanford. All the other market towns have lost their banks, but the community banking hub is not an option because the towns are so small. The current criteria work against the interests of rural Wales, so is there not an argument that the criteria should be extended to take into consideration an amalgamation of rural towns within 20 or 30 miles of each other, so that the community hub could serve two or three towns put together?
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman will be more familiar than I am with the needs of those communities, but I think any proposal is worth looking at. That is certainly true of community banking for several towns, though it might depend on the distance between them. My mother-in-law lives in the highlands and has to travel 10 miles to get to her nearest bank branch. These are all things that need to be considered carefully.
I would like to give a nod to the Castle Community Bank, a fantastic community bank in my area of Leith, for the work it is doing in filling the banking gap for many people where the other banks have failed them. As a credit union, it has been a real asset to the community, supporting vulnerable people to break cycles of debt and get affordable access to loans and other financial services. Its focus is on helping people, not serving shareholders, and I am very happy to give it my thanks and my support for its efforts.
Perhaps RBS should take a leaf from its own book and remember the people it serves. Its website proudly claims that
“the bank has a history of making life easier for its customers. The bank is committed to serving Scottish communities and putting the interests of customers first.”
It is time for that commitment to be made clear in bricks and mortar, not just words.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent speech. I call the Minister to respond.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing this debate. I know this subject is important to many of her constituents, and indeed to those of many other Members.
Just two weeks ago, I responded to an Adjournment debate on branch closures. I want the House to understand that I have been working on this issue a lot in my brief, so I am very familiar with the issues that have been brought up. As I said then, and say again today:
“Banks and building societies are essential in people being able to manage their money on a day-to-day basis, and they hold a privileged and important place in our society. As such, firms must ensure that all customers, wherever they live, have appropriate access to banking and cash services.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1111.]
We all recognise that banking has changed significantly in recent years, as the hon. Member outlined. The shift towards online and mobile access, although not complete, is significant, and it has given customers many more ways to access banking services conveniently and securely. Customers have clearly taken up those opportunities. Recent FCA data shows that almost nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app. By contrast, roughly a fifth of adults regularly use a bank branch. That fifth is very important—I do not want the House to misunderstand me—but it is important to set out the scale of the change we have seen in quite a small number of years.
That does not mean that we should do away with in-person banking services, which remain critically important for many people, not just for access for cash, which I will talk about, but because of the intangible social role they play in the high street. I recognise that, as do the Government. The Government have taken steps in law to protect access to cash—indeed, we are the first Government to do so. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 established the FCA as the lead regulator to deliver that, and gives powers to the FCA to ensure the reasonable provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities, including free services, to individuals. Following that, the Government published a policy statement setting out their policies on access to cash. The FCA must have regard to that as part of a regulatory approach. That statement sets out that people and businesses should be no further than three miles from a free cash access point.
The FCA recently held a consultation on its proposed regulatory regime. Under the proposals, designated banks and building societies will be required to assess and fill gaps, or potential gaps, in cash access provision that significantly impact consumers and businesses.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister makes the point about the distance that people have to travel to get to their branches. The county of Sutherland is 2,028 square miles, and we have only one branch. My plea is very simple. Governments come and go, in both Edinburgh and London, and I wish the Minister well on a personal level; I just ask that officials in the Treasury are made aware of that statistic about Sutherland, and that they bear it in mind when they think about branch closures, whatever happens in the future.
Bim Afolami
I appreciate that intervention from the hon. Member. I will say to him, very directly, something that I was going to say later in my speech. In the case of rural constituencies—he mentioned his very rural constituency—I think that the assessment criteria used by Link for banking hubs, working with Cash Access UK and looking at this whole issue of access to cash, need to be amended. I have communicated that to the industry, and I hope that, over the coming weeks and months, that will happen. It is clearly not working, in a relatively small number of instances in rural areas, where the rules do not appear to be flexible enough. I think that would be useful.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Since 2020, 50 banks in Northern Ireland have closed and only one banking hub has opened. Does the Minister agree that that is just not acceptable? The criteria do need changing. We have heard great plans from the Government to help to change it, but when will that happen? When will the criteria change, and when will the Government take this on board?
Bim Afolami
I am very happy to speak with the hon. Lady about the challenges that Northern Ireland has in this regard—the statistic she outlined speaks for itself. In relation to the criteria, this is an industry-led set of rules—the Government do not determine which banks’ branches open or shut—but there is definitely much more work that we can do, working with the industry, to see whether we can improve things.
The industry has come out, through UK Finance, and said that, over the next 18 months, more than 225 banking hubs will be opened. That will mean a rapid increase in the speed at which banking hubs will open compared with recent years, and the industry is committed to that. However, I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about Northern Ireland in particular.
To respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith regarding the Equality Act 2010, like all service providers, banks and building societies are indeed bound by the Act, and it is not our judgment that they have somehow contravened it. They are bound to make reasonable adjustments, where necessary, in the way that they deliver their services.
In the time remaining to me, I would like to talk a little bit about banking hubs in particular, because I think they have been a unique proposition and have proved, in most cases, very popular where they have appeared. The issue has been, “Let’s get them faster and let’s have more of them.”
Sarah Dyke
I have already mentioned that, in my constituency, many banks have been closing and many market towns have been left without a bank, but many businesses are also really concerned about the lack of banks in their areas. People still want to use cash, and businesses are still taking cash, but they now need to travel many miles across the constituency at the end of the working day to deposit their cash safely. Will the Minister comment on how his Department proposes to manage the negative impacts on some of our vibrant businesses—such as those in my constituency—that make up our villages and towns, which will now have to travel much further to deposit their cash safely?
Bim Afolami
My response is, in part, to repeat what I have already said, which is that we were the first Government to legislate on access to cash in law, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. That sets out that people should be no more than three miles away from access to cash. In relation to banking hubs and the ability of small businesses to use bank branches or a banking hub, that is why banking hubs are so important. These hubs help people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, pay in cheques, and check their balances through the post office counter. They also provide a community banker who can help people with wider banking services, from making a transfer to providing support for fraud and scam victims.
The hubs are deployed by Cash Access UK—the company owned and funded by nine major high street banking providers—in response to an assessment of the community’s cash needs by Link, the co-ordinating body that sets the criteria. As I have already explained, I think that in many instances that criterion needs to be changed by the industry, and I hope that it will do so. To ensure that there is no gap in the provision of services, industry has committed that, if a hub is recommended, it will not close the branch that it replaces for up to 12 months, until that hub is open. If there is a delay beyond that, a temporary hub will be put in its place.
Christine Jardine
I appreciate that there is an internal logic to what the Minister is saying about the banking hubs, and even mobile banks, but it does not reflect the actuality. When I was informed about the branch closure in Newbridge, which I mentioned earlier, it was stated that there was a post office 1.7 miles away where cash could be obtained. That post office was closing, and even if it were not, anyone without a car will have no way of getting there.
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. On the notification of closures, banks and building societies are required to provide customers with at least 12 weeks’ notice, a summary of the firm’s analysis of customer needs —including those who use the branch—and information on how to continue accessing services after the closure. Firms should also provide the support that customers will need to transition to channels such as digital or telephone services. I want to be clear that the support is not just saying, “You need to go and do this.” Firms are meant to provide support, and the impact of any planned closures on their customers must be carefully considered. Any firm that does not adhere to that is not doing its duty.
Michael Shanks
I wonder if the Minister could look at the statistics, because I think some of the statistics used by the banks have been quite misleading. On the question of banking hubs, we have one in Cambuslang in my constituency, which is a fantastic resource, but it is there because all the banks closed. When the Royal Bank of Scotland in Rutherglen closes, I want to avoid all the other branches closing. Banking hubs are a useful tool to have in the community, but does the Minister agree that keeping the branches open would be even better for people?
Bim Afolami
The answer is that sometimes keeping branches open makes sense and sometimes it does not. I cannot say from the Dispatch Box that in every instance it is right to keep all branches open, because the rate at which people are moving online is very rapid. Sometimes it does not make sense, but sometimes of course it does. It is that judgment that the firms have to make independently and commercially. We do not want to live in a world where Government Ministers determine which branches close and open across the country—I do not think that is sensible. It is important that those are independent commercial decisions.
Deidre Brock
The Minister says that it is not appropriate for Ministers to get involved with individual branch closures, but will he tell us what discussions he has had with the banking industry about bank closures and what the response has been?
Bim Afolami
I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about that in more detail outside the Chamber. On the record, I will say that I have had many discussions about branch closures with UK Finance, the body that represents all the banks, and have worked with it to see if we can speed up the roll-out of banking hubs.
In the remaining time that I have, I will restate that just a few weeks ago the 50th banking hub opened, and Link has recommended over 70 more so far. That includes 15 hubs that have already been announced across Scotland. It is a priority for me that industry continues to deliver, to ensure that customers maintain appropriate access. UK Finance has committed to 225 hub locations to be announced by the end of 2024, up from 120 currently.
To conclude, it is important that those hubs provide a good service to customers. Following my recent discussions with high street banks, I am pleased that industry has agreed to improve the services in hubs to ensure that customers have a positive experience. I communicated those in a “Dear colleague” letter to Members of the House, and I have written to the Chair of the Treasury Committee. We are not in a completely perfect place, but things are improving. Taken together, the measures represent a significant step forward from industry to ensure that all customer needs are appropriately met. I will continue to monitor the roll-out of future banking hubs closely, as I will the whole issue.
Question put and agreed to.
World Species Congress
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the World Species Congress.
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance as ever, Sir Charles, and I thank you for letting me proceed with the debate on the World Species Congress and the importance of the Reverse the Red movement. The aim of the debate is simple and straightforward: to recognise the urgent species recovery and conservation work that is needed to build a future where nature can thrive. Tomorrow on 15 May the World Species Congress, hosted by the Reverse the Red movement, is being held, and this debate is part of a network of satellite events hosted around the world to shine a light on species recovery. The events will offer a forum for collaboration and a road map for success to all who strive to create a healthier planet, with the ultimate goal of reducing species decline and restoring wildlife.
As chair of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group, I am particularly pleased that the country’s most visited zoo and, indeed, one of the most visited attractions in the country—Chester zoo—is spearheading World Species Congress activity in the UK. With initiatives ranging from a science webinar on saving species to a livestreamed lesson for schools and presentations to the World Species Congress programme, I thank Chester zoo for its national leadership.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. From a remaining total population of just six plants, Chester zoo and partners have worked to rescue the critically endangered Cotoneaster cambricus, which is only found in north Wales. Thirty individual plants have now been returned to our cliff sides. As a result, the long-term survival of this north Walian plant species is now looking promising. Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating all involved?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely will, and I intend to go through some other examples in our nations that we should also be celebrating.
We stand at a pivotal moment in history. We face a global biodiversity crisis where the fate of over 1 million species hangs in the balance due to human disruption and the destruction of habitats. There is simply no more time on the clock. The UK is one of the worst countries in the world for nature loss, with just 3% of our land and 8% of our seas sufficiently protected in nature terms. The 2023 “State of Nature” report makes worrying reading. It states that in the UK native species have on average declined by 19% since 1970 and that nearly one in six species are now threatened with extinction.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the debate; she is absolutely right to do so. Does she not agree that the protection of the species we have is vital and that we as a nation and, indeed, our Government have a greater role to play in the protection of native species in the UK, as well as more widely? We in this United Kingdom can play our part globally as well, which is highlighted by the World Species Congress.
Sarah Champion
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We cannot see any of those declines in isolation, because more than half of plant species have declined. Among the world’s worst-hit groups are pollinators such as bees and butterflies, falling by 18% on average. I am ashamed to say that this has left the UK with the lowest level of biodiversity among G7 countries.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the example that the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the zoos are setting has not been copied by the country’s largest landowner, the National Trust? The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been complaining about this issue ever since I was elected 23 years ago, yet it is still failing on its reserves. Is it not time that we asked the people who complain about this to try a lot harder to achieve what they want the Government to do?
Sarah Champion
The hon. Gentleman is the expert on that, so I accept his argument. I say again that it is only if we all work together with no exceptions that we can make the difference. Of course, the largest landowners need to be pulling their weight, if not leading by example.
It is a relief that, in 2022, the UK joined 195 nations and committed to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. That framework includes a commitment, by 2030, to have threatened species recovering, genetic diversity being maintained, and human-wildlife conflict being managed. Despite those commitments, we are well behind in our efforts to reverse the harrowing decline of biodiversity. One thing is clear: we must do more to meet our international commitments, and that work must begin immediately.
First, I call on the Government to set more ambitious nature restoration and species recovering targets. The aim should be to provide the long-term certainty needed to drive action and investment in environmental restoration.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I do not disagree with her call for the targets to be more ambitious, but does she share my concerns that the Government are not on track for a single one of those targets that they did set? Before they start getting more ambitious, they need to show us that they have some kind of plan to actually achieve the targets they have set out so far.
Sarah Champion
Sadly, I agree. We want leadership, which I—and from what it sounds like, those on the Labour Front Bench—feel is lacking at the moment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, these targets should not just be our end goal; they are signposts that we can follow to get to the peak of ecological restoration and healthier habitats, which I think all of us want.
Of course, climate change is a key driver in nature’s decline, and the loss of wildlife and wild places both contribute to climate change itself, leaving us ill-equipped to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to change in the future. We must therefore recognise that climate and biodiversity crises are intrinsically linked, and take comprehensive and joined-up approaches that tackle both the climate emergency and the nature crisis together. Only then will we start to turn the tide. We are falling behind, but there is hope. Organisations and charities across the country are working hard to recover species and restore nature. I am particularly pleased with the massive contribution that these organisations are making to reintroduce native species, rejuvenate ecosystems and rekindle hope for the future.
There are several exciting examples from across the UK, and I thank my colleagues, the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for raising two of them. Let me give some more. Take, for example, the Scottish wildcat in the Cairngorms national park. The population of these highland tigers has plummeted as a result of human-wildlife conflict and significant losses of native woodland, to the extent that they are now functionally extinct—that is to say, there is no longer a viable wild population for the future. Now, however, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland have worked to breed and reintroduce this iconic species, the last surviving native cat in Britain, to the beautiful Scottish landscape.
In Wales, there has been impressive work to reintroduce the native pine marten by the Vincent Wildlife Trust, assisted by Chester zoo, helping to pull this species back from the brink. European pine marten populations have declined dramatically, and by the 20th century, they had mostly disappeared from their once-intensive habitats in the UK. I am pleased to say that not only have the pine martens been reintroduced to Wales, but they have also been successful in breeding a viable population that can create a new stronghold for the species and ensure its survival.
In Northern Ireland, Belfast zoo is working with partners to secure the long-term future of the increasingly rare red squirrel, which is threatened by the invasive grey squirrel. This breeding and reintroduction scheme has taken place for many years now, and is proving effective.
Jim Shannon
Near where I live, Rosemount, Ballywalter and Mount Stuart all have a red squirrel programme, so there are others outside the zoo doing that. On bees and pollinating, just again for the hon. Lady and for Hansard, the black bee used to be a very scarce and almost extinct species of bee in Northern Ireland, but is coming back through the efforts of Chris and Valentine Hodges, who live just down the road from me. They have black bee projects across a lot of estates, and even on my own farm. There is a lot being done not just by the zoos, but by individual people as well.
Sarah Champion
It also seems appropriate to mention the farmers who, without those pollinators, are really suffering. I am pleased that today the National Farmers Union is at the Farm to Fork summit, and I hope the Government listen to it.
Finally, in England the Wildwood Trust has worked to reintroduce bison into Blean woods near Canterbury. Remarkably, those are the first bison to roam freely in the UK in thousands of years. They will help to reshape the landscape to make the area more resilient to climate change, and reverse species decline through the natural management of woodlands. Paignton zoo and the National Marine Aquarium have collectively restored acres of seagrass to our coastline, creating vital carbon sinks as well as homes for species such as seahorses.
This is not just in the UK. The UK’s overseas territories have 94% of our unique native wild species, and 11% of those are threatened with global extinction. Zoos are also working to recover species. In Dominica and Monserrat, for example, a consortium of zoos, including Chester zoo and the Zoological Society of London, is helping bring back the mountain chicken frog, one of the world’s largest frogs, often weighing up to a kilo. They are called that because they taste like chicken, which has been one of the problems. The frog has been almost wiped out by over-hunting and disease.
Despite the commendable efforts of these conservation powerhouses, the stark reality remains. The rate of species loss is accelerating at an alarming pace, but things are looking up for the mountain chicken frog and the population is back on—not on the menu but on the climb. Those shocking statistics serve as a sobering reminder of the magnitude of the crisis we face. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, species are disappearing at a rate a thousand times faster than the natural background rate. We may be witnessing the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth’s history. Despite that, it appears the Government do not have a realistic plan to recover species in the UK. Indeed, under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs described species reintroduction as “not a priority” for the Government.
Although species reintroduction is just one part of the road we must take to protect the intricate web of life that sustains our planet, it is an important one, because conserving our remaining wildlife is not enough. We must also take action to support nature’s recovery, and I urge the Government to act accordingly. I hope that any future Labour Government would certainly work hard to ensure that the UK meets its 2030 targets.
Sir Charles, you may be aware that as part of the COP15 agreement, every country is now obliged to revise its plan, formerly called the national biodiversity strategy and action plan, to bring it in line with a new global framework. Conservation organisations up and down the country, including zoos and aquariums, are patiently waiting for the UK’s publication. There is real concern, however, that it will not include nearly enough ambition and urgency.
Will the Minister confirm that the UK’s plan will outdo expectations, and will not just be a rehash of old promises? Will it contain new plans to fill the gaps? Will the Minister also announce when it will be published? The publication of the NBSAP could be the perfect opportunity for the UK genuinely to show its global leadership credentials, with the whole of the UK working together to produce an ambitious and co-ordinated plan for nature. To do that the UK’s vibrant conservation sector of non-governmental organisations, which includes zoos and aquariums, must be fully engaged in formulating and executing this plan.
Will the Minister agree to take advantage of this fantastic opportunity to ensure that we really put nature on the road to recovery by 2030? The World Species Congress acts as a spotlight on the work needed to ensure that nature can thrive. I have already mentioned some of the successes that we are seeing in the UK. They are proof that it is possible, but we need a national effort. Nature cannot wait. Only immediate and decisive action will put us on the right path to restoring nature across our United Kingdom and further afield. We need help to accelerate species recovery and reverse the red, so I urge the Government to prioritise this existential issue.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), especially as I was the first chair of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group when I got here 19 years ago, but enough of that.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate and I agree with much of what she said. This issue unites us across the House. The two co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on global deforestation—the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and I—are sitting on either side of the Chamber. We disagree on a huge amount, but on this issue we are absolutely on the same page.
I gently challenge the hon. Member for Rotherham, because I think she has been a bit hard on the Government, who have done more than their predecessors of either persuasion to address the issue. In my view, that is a good start, but there is a long way to go. She touched on a whole range of issues and organisations. I share her congratulations on the work done by people at Chester zoo; I have been to talk to them about their work on elephants in India. She talked about the UK, but the zoo has a global footprint and an enormously important role.
On the NGO sector, I sit on the board of the African Wildlife Foundation, which is an NGO based in Nairobi that does excellent work in protected areas across Africa. The voluntary sector is also enormously important in all its different guises. Some fantastic work is being done around the world that is genuinely making a difference. Recent academic research shows that the tide is beginning to turn. There is a long way to go and there are still some very big problems—with deforestation, for example—but there is a global understanding now that we cannot go on like this. A huge amount of effort from individuals, corporates, Governments and NGOs is beginning to turn the tide. That turning of the tide just has to accelerate, and the good work that the hon. Member for Rotherham described is an important part of that.
I have a couple of nudges for the Government, but I will also mention some things that are being done well. The new support structure for farming in the countryside needs some tweaks and changes—it is not a perfect system yet—but the principle of supporting farmers to protect nature is absolutely right. Equally, the introduction of biodiversity net gain can be only transformational in the UK. The requirements for building companies to ensure that their impact on nature is counterbalanced by improvements to habitats elsewhere are absolutely right, and some of the most important things that this Government have introduced.
The Government have taken important steps on marine protected areas, which I have been pushing for, because they are about species not just on the land, but in our seas, where there are some serious issues. There is still more to do and I encourage the Minister to get on with finishing the task, but it is an important step that we have started to ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas, which will make a significant difference.
I am outraged, to be frank, that various European Union nations are now trying to stop us putting in place protections for the sand eels on Dogger Bank that provide essential food for puffins and other species. We cannot have it both ways: we cannot all say that we want to protect nature globally but then, when one country takes a step to protect nature as the UK is doing, impose the full force of international law and threaten to tear up or revisit international agreements. That cannot be the right thing to do. I very much hope that the European Union will back off, because the protections are right for nature.
I will nudge the Minister on deforestation and the secondary legislation needed to extend the good work done in the Environment Act 2021 to tackle the issue of illegal deforestation and forest risk products coming to the UK. I know that that work has not been straightforward and there have been various governance issues, but the reality is that it needs to get done before the election.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member, alongside myself, does a great job of co-chairing the APPG on global deforestation, and he is absolutely right about the legislation. Does he agree that the Government also need to be mindful of the issue when undertaking trade deal negotiations? We need the legislation, but we also need the Department for Business and Trade to have sight of the issue as well.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree, and indeed I am on record as saying—before the Brazilian election—that I would not countenance supporting a trade deal with Brazil until the deforestation in the Amazon had been addressed. There is significant progress there now, although there are still issues in Peru. However we manage this issue internationally, and whatever we do in terms of financial support for the developing world, we cannot go on chopping down forests around the world—we have to stop. It is hugely damaging to ecosystems and we cannot afford to carry on.
I ask the Minister: can we see the secondary legislation for forest risk products? There will then be two debates to be had: one around whether we should extend the legislation to legal deforestation in the way that the European Union has done, and another around the principle of due diligence, which should also apply to the financial services sector. I do not think that that will happen before the election, but I say to Members on both Front Benches that it needs to be done after the election, as has been recommended by senior business figures.
My recent ten-minute rule Bill on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing would extend the principles in the Environment Act for forest risk products to fisheries around the world. Too much fish is coming into the UK and the European Union from totally unsustainable fisheries and from illegal fishing around the world. Huge fleets of vessels, many from China, are sailing around the world and hoovering up the oceans, without any reference at all to sustainability or the endangered nature of the species concerned. We must talk about species on a world basis: we could all come together and deal with the issue by applying tough international rules about trade in IUU fish, by clamping down on licensing and monitoring, and by preventing IUU fishing from happening. I ask the Minister and, indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), to put that issue more firmly on their agenda. It needs to happen.
The Government have done a lot, which is definitely a tick in the box compared with many previous Governments, but nobody should be under any illusions about the extent of the work that remains. Fantastic work is being done by NGOs and, increasingly, by individuals and private foundations, as well as by more and more Governments. However, to reverse what has happened both here and in other parts of the world, as well as to protect what we still have, a huge amount still needs to be done.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Alex Sobel, you have seven minutes. I want everybody to have a turn.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate and for all the amazing work she does in the zoological sector around species loss. Given the upcoming World Species Congress, this debate is important and timely.
Many hon. Members will know that I care deeply about conservation, and I have raised it countless times in Parliament, including when I was on the Front Bench. I thank Reverse the Red and the long-standing organisers who work with Wildlife and Countryside Link, BIAZA and, of course, Chester zoo, which I worked with when I served as a shadow Minister, as well as when I have been on APPGs throughout my time in Parliament. They have continued to educate me on the issues of nature and species loss.
There has been a real-terms decrease of 42% in public funding for UK biodiversity since its peak in 2008-09. We do not want to make this an overtly partisan debate, but that does reflect the priorities of our respective parties. It was Lord Goldsmith, when he was a DEFRA Minister, who said that the UK is the most nature-depleted country in the world. I will not go on about the facts and figures, which we all know, but this debate is an opportunity to ensure that the UK adopts a robust, ambitious and integrated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham alluded to the rumours that the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for England will simply be a reworking of the environmental improvement plan. That is disappointing and, frankly, dangerous. It will be another failure of ambition by the Government, bypassing the creation of any meaningful legislative or financial measures. The Office for Environmental Protection has said that the EIP is no more than a wish list and does not provide any on-the-ground species recovery targets, so I hope the Minister will clarify her plans. The World Species Congress is an opportunity to shed light on the granular aspects of the commitments we make to support and protect species.
Fundamentally, meeting our environmental targets requires an integrated and collaborative approach across sectors and the UK’s four nations. Each country’s strategy must interlock to form a whole, and they must work with local nature recovery plans, some of which have been developed and some of which are in development, to begin to have a real impact on nature.
The UK’s NBSAP needs to treat devolved nature policy as a component part, and outline new structures of governance. That would ensure ongoing collaboration among policymakers, politicians and environmental organisations, and delivery across sectors. There is no strategy indicating how the new biodiversity policies will work together, so their implementation could be piecemeal, conflicting and small scale as a result. Nature is not adequately factored into Government decision making. The Government should set out how environmental and planning policies will link together to form a coherent whole.
The 2011-20 Aichi biodiversity targets agreed by COP10 failed—the UK failed to meet at least 14 of the 19 targets —partly because there was no effective monitoring framework to keep the parties on track; in other words, they were marking their own homework. The 2022 United Nations biodiversity conference of the parties to the UN convention on biological diversity, which I attended, agreed four goals and 23 targets. Currently, each country develops its own approach to measuring and monitoring biodiversity.
To begin to meet those targets, we will need the UK’s NBSAP to implement indicators and allow a regular assessment of progress. That will mean that we can adjust plans and policies in real time when required. There is no requirement in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework to monitor or assess the progress being made, or not, towards biodiversity and nature goals, so effectively the parties are still marking their own homework.
There needs to be a formal mechanism to assess performance against goals and planned action. In the UK, we have one of the world-leading indexes—the Natural History Museum’s biodiversity intactness index —although it is not the only one. We need to adopt an existing index or get the parties to agree to one that does not currently exist. I would rather that we do the former. By doing that, the UK would demonstrate global leadership on species recovery.
We know that there is overwhelming support among the UK public for the restoration of nature. Improving our ecosystem’s health and supporting an abundant natural environment creates healthier communities. The future of wildlife is inextricably linked to our own future as a species.
Plans for nature recovery and nature gain touch on all aspects of our economy. Delivering wide-scale habitat restoration is reliant on the UK creating green jobs. The NBSAP is an opportunity to integrate nature and people by setting out exactly how funds will be directed towards biodiversity skills shortages. There is a skills gap in ecology. No matter how many well-intentioned speeches we hear about the need to create green jobs, there are no proper financial measures to address that. The devolved Administrations and local authorities will simply not be able to prevent further losses and reach our 2030 goals.
If we create a national nature service, people all over the UK will be able to gain hands-on experience and qualifications in green skills. That relates to my earlier point about the need for a cross-sector approach. A national nature service would not only support the economy but deliver biodiversity restoration. The UK is currently behind several major economies globally on that front.
The UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan needs to be effective; it must not be a heartfelt but ultimately empty gesture towards nature recovery. Given the UK’s status as the most nature-depleted nation, that could be a real opportunity for us to deliver action and leadership at the CBD.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Leptodactylus fallax, the mountain chicken frog, is dying not because it is being consumed, but because it gets a very nasty fungus called chytridiomycosis, and zoos are able to protect those frogs because they can take them away from their very small habitats. Nearly all species decline is due to human encroachment, so protecting the habitat has to be the first step in protecting those species.
I was fuming this morning when I read that the Woodland Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts have been complaining about species loss. These people own half a million hectares of land between them and have an income of £871 million, so there is no excuse for their getting cross with everybody else when they have so much ability to protect habitats themselves.
What we have seen over the 23 years that I mentioned in my intervention—it was very good of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to take it and she should be congratulated on securing the debate—is a decimation of the variety of pesticides used, which is welcome. However, the hop growers complain to me that the European Union allows far more pesticides than we do. We see the Government taking steps in the right direction and yet we have more—I must not get this word wrong—corvids; after a covid crisis, it is very easy to get in a jumble. Corvids are magpies, crows, jays and all the types of bird that prey on our species.
We have seen decimation of the curlew population. There has not been a curlew fledge for 11 years on RSPB reserves. Yet on grouse moors, where predators are controlled, we have seen huge results. Ninety-seven per cent. of curlew nest failures were the result of predation by mink, foxes, gulls and crows, but red-listed, ground-nesting birds have a 71% success rate in areas with predator control.
The zoos show that if we manage species, we can bring them back from the brink. The gamekeepers and the areas protected for shooting grouse are more successful at protecting rare breeds. It is not okay to go back to the old mantra of, “Shooting bad, conservation good.” This is about management. I do not care why someone is managing an area: if we want species diversity and success, we have to manage. I hope that, having expressed that thought about population pressure and management, any future Government will consider very carefully allowing unlimited migration of people or indeed foreign species.
If we look at golden plovers or grey partridges, we see that they do better with management through predator control. If we do not stop things from eating the species that we care about, they will not be there. It does not seem to me to be okay to criticise the Government when there is so much that we can all do. People can feed the birds, but if they do, are we just going to encourage more corvids, or will we see our precious songbird populations increase? The evidence is that if we look after the birds, their populations succeed.
Food around the year, conservation of habitat and predator control are a three-legged stool. If we get that right, we will see success. If we continue to stand back and allow these organisations that have failed for the last 20 years to continue to run the countryside into the ground, we will not have the diversity that we all want.
I think the example set by the zoos is one that we should copy. We should not be blinkered about management. I am afraid that when it comes to countries such as our own, where there are large numbers of people, management of predators is essential. If we care about species, we have to take the tough decisions, and I hope that in the future both our Government and any future Government will do so.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We now go to the Front Benchers, who have about five minutes each. They can have a little bit longer, because we have a bit of spare time, but I am sure that everyone will want to hear a full response from the Minister.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate.
The World Species Congress, organised by the Reverse the Red coalition, will be held on 15 May 2024, as we have heard. This event provides a platform to celebrate global wildlife and to discuss strategies to mitigate species decline, and we have had a very good debate on just that subject this afternoon.
The World Species Congress is also a timely opportunity for the UK to demonstrate global leadership in halting species decline. We in the SNP maintain that biodiversity loss and the biodiversity crisis are intrinsically linked to the climate emergency. Together, they constitute an existential threat to all humanity, so they must be taken seriously. The 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described the situation as being “Code red” for humanity. Well, that code is probably now maroon. The rationale is clear—more can and must be done.
Fundamentally, our economy, our jobs, our health and our wellbeing depend on biodiversity; it is integral to our culture and indeed to our way of life. Given that, decision making needs to be managed in a collaborative and balanced way. Biodiversity plays a crucial role in both addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change. When functioning well, ocean and land ecosystems globally remove around 50% of human-made carbon dioxide emissions every year. More than half the world’s GDP, $45 trillion, is dependent on nature in some way. Yet humans have caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and 50% of all plants. Globally, biodiversity is declining faster than at any other time in human history.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’s global assessment of biodiversity describes the pressures on nature; an 83% population decline in freshwater species, a 60% population decline in invertebrate species and a 41% decline in known insect species. More than 85% of wetland areas have now been lost. The high seas, which make up around 50% of the earth’s surface, have only 1.2% of their area protected. In 2022, in its updated red list of threatened species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature assessed that nearly 10% of global marine species are at risk of extinction.
In the face of mounting evidence that Scotland is experiencing dramatic declines in our biodiversity, the Scottish Government have set out ambitious plans and a new framework in its 2022 to 2045 strategy to halt biodiversity loss by 2030, and reverse it through large-scale restoration by 2045. Under the SNP Government, 30% of Scotland’s seas are now designated marine protected areas, including 247 sites for nature conservation. We have also reintroduced the Scottish wildcat.
The Scottish Government are also committed to moving towards a circular economy, shifting from a take, make, and dispose model to one where materials are kept and valued. The Scottish Government’s vision recognises the mutually beneficial nature of connectivity between sustainable economic growth, inclusiveness, wellbeing and the protection of the planet and its biodiversity. Failure to act will perpetuate the vulnerabilities, jeopardise the fight against climate change, and threaten human wellbeing, our ecosystems and our economies for decades, if not centuries to come.
The upcoming World Species Congress is not merely an event, but a call to action. We need to seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment, implement the robust measures that are required, and lead by example in the fight to preserve our planet’s biodiversity.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Charles. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate, and on her contribution.
The contributions today encourage us to focus on not only stemming the tide of species lost, but actively taking steps to promote nature’s recovery. I welcome the Reverse the Red coalition’s hosting a day of reflection about how we help promote species diversity and growth. It is fantastic that such a broad intersection of activities and initiatives will be on offer. It is precisely the kind of collaborative action that will be required, from the classroom to the United Nations General Assembly hall, if the world is to halt decline and restore nature.
In 2022, COP15 in Montreal agreed stretching but necessary targets on nature. Those present agreed four goals and 23 targets to halt the reverse and loss of nature globally by 2030. That was groundbreaking and, let’s be honest, it was tough, but the world is now in a position where those deeply ambitious goals are necessary if the human race is to tackle the dual climate change and biodiversity crises. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, any plan is only as good as its implementation. We live in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, despite the Government’s setting out fairly ambitious targets on reversing nature’s decline.
The Office for Environmental Protection’s latest report, published earlier this year, showed that the Government are way off track on all their key goals related to climate and the environment, including for biodiversity loss. We also know that the global 2011-20 Aichi biodiversity targets agreed by COP10 were emphatically missed across the board. That simply cannot go on. A Labour Government would look to grow nature-rich habitats— like as wetlands, peat bogs and forests—for families to explore and wildlife to thrive. Championing unique habitats, such as wetlands, will help restore species which call them home, such as the curlew to which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) referred. Curlew numbers dropped by 64% between 1970 and 2014, and the curlew is currently on the red list for extinction risk.
The Labour party will go further and help protected areas, such as national parks, to become wilder and greener, thus ending the destruction of nature, and restoring and expanding habitats. Before this year’s COP16, in Colombia, each party that signed up to the Montreal agreement must publish national biodiversity strategies and action plans. Those plans must show how each country will individually contribute to the agreed goals. As we have seen with the failure of previous initiatives, those strategies will be crucial to making good on the warm words with which all countries have been happy to associate themselves.
We are led to believe that the UK’s plan will be split into four discrete strands for each of the devolved nations, as well as including additional plans for overseas territories and Crown dependencies. That makes sense. It is crucial that plans are sufficiently granular and specific to local context so that they can guide action on the ground, and get results.
However, there is anxiety across the sector that the plan for England will be—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said—a rehash of the misfiring environmental improvement plan, which has been panned by the OEP, and is more an aspirational wish list than a real plan. What can the Minister say to contradict that verdict? Will the Government lay out a detailed road map for achieving those targets or will it be left to the next Government? Will the Government produce a bespoke, detailed plan for England that includes specific actions required to reverse species decline by 2030?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Member is talking great sense, but he is missing a couple of examples of the actual things a Labour Government would do. What, in practical terms, are we not doing that he would do?
Mr Perkins
There are a number of things. Let me continue and I hope I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
The nations of the United Kingdom all play host to a rich diversity of natural life. It is our privilege to live on islands in which almost any natural life or landscape one could wish for is present. But, if Britain is to live up to the ambitious goals set at a national level, our strategies and action plans must make sure that each nation is working hand in hand, moving towards the same goals, and not working at cross purposes. Will the Minister confirm that each strategy will set out the framework for co-ordination between all nations and define the mechanisms by which the respective environmental Departments will collaborate?
In December 2023, analysis conducted by Wildlife and Countryside Link—the largest coalition of wildlife and environmental organisations in the UK—found that, a year on from COP15 in Montreal, the UK was off track on 18 of the targets to which it had signed up. Of those 18 targets, Link found that, on 11 of them, either no progress was being made or things were actively getting worse. As I have mentioned, there is a complete failure to meet the previous targets on nature, agreed at COP10. That failure is, not least, due to the lack of a serious monitoring and reporting regime to track the nation’s progress against those goals. Transparency on progress is crucial if the strategies are to be credible and effective. Will the Minister commit to embedding a real-time monitoring framework into the plans to make sure we can all see how nations are faring against these goals and allow policy to be adapted accordingly?
Although it is necessary for the Government to take the time required to develop plans with the level of detail we have requested today—not simply take the environmental improvement plan off the shelf—it is also important for us all to have sight of those plans and make sure they are up to scratch. Can the Minister please tell us when her Department intends to publish the strategies in advance of COP16? The time for action is now. The strategy must start with an acceptance that Britain is currently off track, and a renewed determination to rescue our depleted natural world.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will call the hon. Lady for Rotherham to wind up at 5.28 pm. Minister, you have 13 minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles, because I know you are interested in areas such as these and have done much work on them yourself. I must also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for tabling the debate. She, too, has done valuable work with the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group. I was very pleased to hear that referenced, and in particular to hear the reference to the work on cotoneaster going on at Chester zoo. Projects like that are so valuable to our plants and animals, given the stress they are under.
I believe there is clear synergy in the room: despite some conflicting views, we are all moving in the same direction in understanding the importance of having healthy and sustainable nature, how that links to climate change, and why we need to do something about it. It has never been more important to restore biodiversity, and the 24-hour, non-stop World Species Congress presents such a good opportunity for all the experts, volunteers and other people involved to come together to share their knowledge and ideas. These events are very important. More than half of the global economy is dependent in some way or another on the ecosystem services provided by nature. Our global GDP is intrinsically linked to that. Around 75% of all food crops are dependent in some way on pollinators—we have heard pollinators mentioned. That is why this issue is so important.
We have all heard about the alarming depletion of nature, but I want to focus on how we are leading the way. I want to take issue with some of the things we have heard from the other Front Benchers. The critical thing that this Government have done, which no other Government have done so far, is put in place the framework we need. We know there is a problem; we have set the framework, and it is backed up by legislation. As the Opposition know, the Environment Act was not a quick thing to do. I steered that through the House—many Members present were on the Bill Committee—before it went through the House of Lords, and it took two years. It is globally leading and sets the whole framework of targets. Targets are very important, and they were not set without a great deal of expert advice. One of the major targets we set was the globally leading apex target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030—I will give some more detail about that—and then reverse it by 2040.
Just last Friday, our species abundance indicator, a new official statistic that is still in development, reported back to tell us how we are doing. We have all been waiting for that, which has been an enormous piece of work. While there is a real problem and it is very complicated, the indicator gives us some encouragement, and I urge hon. Members to have a look at it. It shows that some of the historic declines may be beginning to level out. However, there is still so much to do, a lot of which is embedded in our environmental improvement plan annual review, which will be published again this summer and will show progress. The first one was published after a very short time, but now the plan has been going for two years.
Mr Perkins
The Minister may be touching on the point I was going to raise. There is cross-party agreement that the targets were a welcome step forward, but she cannot ignore the OEP’s critique that we are not on target. If she is saying that she thinks the next update will show that we are making progress, I very much look forward to seeing it.
Rebecca Pow
I think the hon. Gentleman would respect that we are the party that set up the OEP. We actually set up a body that would challenge us to make sure that we are on target. That was a bold thing to do, but we have done it, and it is necessary. He will see a change as the years go on and the policies start to have effect. For example, we have already turbocharged peatland restoration. We set a target of restoring 35,000 hectares by 2030 and we have already done 28,000. We also have our huge nature for climate fund, which is funding so many projects.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned what Labour might do with national parks. He obviously has not noticed that we have already strengthened the legislation for our national parks and national landscapes. They will play a very important part in achieving our targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) made a good point about the importance of habitat management. There are some huge landscape recovery projects going on, particularly in protected landscapes. There is a good example on Bucklebury Common, where heathland has been restored, which has managed to get back adders and nightjars. He also made a good point about major landowning groups. I have started to chair a body of those groups, which include the Church, the National Trust, the duchy and the Crown, in order to discuss what contribution they can make towards our biodiversity targets. As everyone here is agreed, we all have to work together on this. Everyone has to play their part, and this Government have put in place the strategies and frameworks so we can start to deliver on the targets.
One useful thing will be the biodiversity net gain, which will add to the sum total of our nature. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referenced the forest risk legislation, which I hope to introduce later this month—the Secretary of State referenced it just last week at DEFRA questions—so that we can make it illegal for large regulated businesses to use soya, palm oil, cocoa and cattle products if they have contravened any of the laws in the source country. That is the way we think we can make that very important move, and I was talking to manufacturers of cattle feed in this country who want that legislation because it will set the agenda for investment.
Sir Bill Wiggin
Will the Minister look at simple things we can do in the UK in that legislation, such as not insisting on a bat survey in the planning process, but insisting that bats get the mitigating changes to building regulations that they require automatically, thus saving developers and getting on with saving species?
Rebecca Pow
We have done a lot of work with DLUHC on improving and speeding up site strategies. We have a new method for site strategies, which is particularly working for newts, and certainly bats are being looked at.
Oceans were referenced. We have 178 marine protected areas and three highly protected marine areas, and because we have left the common fisheries policy, we are now in charge of our own policies and have brought in byelaws to stop the damaging bottom trawling that was referenced. We have also banned the fishing of sand eels on Dogger Bank—a huge step that we were able to take because we are now independent. Through that, we are saving our seabirds. Sand eels are their main source of food, yet other countries were going there with their supertrawlers to catch them in order to feed their fish farms.
We are doing so much at home, including the environmental land management and sustainable farming incentive schemes, that is feeding into reaching our targets. We have integrated pest management to help our pollinators and a raft of other measures that farmers are putting in place to help us hit the targets and recover nature. We are also doing so much work internationally. We have all our international conventions. We adhere to the convention on the conservation of migratory species and we have the convention on biological diversity, which will be so important at COP16. As everyone knows, the UK was at the forefront of the negotiations at COP15 to set the global biodiversity framework, which we are adhering to.
The UK national biodiversity action plans were mentioned in detail. We have been working very hard to prepare those and will publish them imminently. I remind the shadow Ministers and other colleagues that all the devolved Administrations have to take part in that, so we urge them to make sure they are doing their bit to feed into it. That is in addition to our UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. In fact, I have just come from chairing a meeting with the OTs. They are so important to the sum total of our nature because they hold 94% of it. They are working with our funds—our Darwin funds and our other funds—so that we can help them to nurture and save that wonderful wildlife.
Importantly, we cannot do any of this without mobilising finance on a large scale across the globe to help us protect and conserve nature. The UK is again leading the international efforts on that, with our international climate finance commitment. We have committed huge amounts: £3 billion from 2025 to 2026, and £11.6 billion overall.
I hope I have demonstrated just how much we are doing. I could talk for hours on this subject. I feel that with the experts and the advice that we have, including all the people working in DEFRA and in other Departments, we genuinely understand that there is a big crisis. The critical thing is getting the framework in place so that we can drive the action. Of course, our policies have to do that, which is why what farmers do, while also producing sustainable and secure food supplies, is so important. We understand that, and those two things can work together, as our Farm to Fork event today showcased.
I thank everyone for their contributions to this important debate and the hon. Member for Rotherham for securing it. I wish the congress all the best with its 24-hour marathon. Let me finish by saying that there is more to come.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you very much, Minister. The hon. Member for Rotherham has two minutes to wind up this excellent debate.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister, because I know she is truly dedicated to the topic and has done a huge amount to move it forward, but whenever I go into schools, biodiversity and climate change is the one topic that pupils want to know why we are not doing more on. When we look back on the contributions that have been made today, part of the problem is that the topic is so broad. There is deforestation, sustainability of fishing, the decimation of our wild birds, and better land and habitat management. One of the things I say to the schoolchildren is that until we get proper cross-departmental buy-in and collaboration, we are always going to be struggling, because we are dealing with symptoms in isolation. One particularly good example is marine protected areas. On 3 May, the Government rolled out another 70 oil licences, and a number of those directly hit our marine protected areas. I urge the Minister to try to get that cross-Government collaboration going.
I will end by paraphrasing my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who said that what we need is robust, ambitious and integrated programming when it comes to securing biodiversity in the UK and internationally. I really hope that this Government and future Governments take that on board and act with the urgency that we need. We do not have time to wait any more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the World Species Congress.
Written Correction
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prime Minister
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
Since I became Prime Minister, small boat crossings are down by a third. That is because we have doubled National Crime Agency funding, increased enforcement rates, closed bank accounts, deported 24,000 people and processed more claims.
[Official Report, 8 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 567-568.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak):
Rishi Sunak
Since I became Prime Minister, small boat crossings are down by a third. That is because we have doubled National Crime Agency funding, increased enforcement rates, closed bank accounts, removed or returned 26,000 people and processed more claims.
Written Statements
Civil Service: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
The Government have a plan to deliver a brighter future for Britain, with long-term economic security and opportunity, where hard work is always rewarded, where ambition and aspiration are celebrated, where young people get the skills they need to succeed in life, where families are supported, where those who have worked hard all their lives have the dignity they deserve in retirement, and with security at home and abroad.
The civil service is crucial to the delivery of that plan. We want to cut waste and inefficiency so civil servants can better support our frontline services. In that light, this Government wish to ensure that all public spending on equality, diversity and inclusion is proportionate, meeting all statutory requirements, and represents value for money.
Last October, and reaffirmed by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, the Government commissioned a review of EDI expenditure across the civil service, to identify current spend on roles and activities, and to understand whether existing expenditure is effective and efficient.
The review found that across 95 civil service organisations total EDI expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year was £27.1 million. We do not believe that this represents value for money.
We have also been informed by the Inclusion at Work Panel’s report from March 2024 which found that many employers want to “do the right thing” but are implementing EDI initiatives without an evidence base, and many do not know the impact these initiatives are having or whether they represent value for money. In a growing number of cases, particularly relating to positive discrimination and protected beliefs, the report found that EDI interventions are proving to be counterproductive.
In response to these findings, today the Cabinet Office is publishing the “Civil Service EDI Expenditure Guidance”. This includes an end to all external spending on EDI activity, unless cleared and authorised by Ministers. In addition:
There will be centralised EDI guidance for Departments and arm’s length bodies and EDI learning will be regulated through the civil service learning framework unless authorised by Ministers through the spend control.
Stand-alone EDI roles will also cease to exist outside of HR as Secretaries of State and permanent secretaries are expected to consolidate them into existing HR teams.
Diversity content included in civil service job adverts will also be standardised to ensure diversity policy is clearly and consistently shared. This will enable civil servants to focus on their specific job role and on delivering for the taxpayer.
Support for disability will be excluded from these changes, recognising the particular needs of disabled staff. As set out in the Government’s 2021 “National Disability Strategy” and 2024 “Disability Action Plan”, we will continue to support them and give them the help to achieve their goals and excel.
We are also publishing guidance on diversity and inclusion and impartiality requirements. This meets the commitment made in action 62 of the “Inclusive Britain” report.
The guidance makes clear that civil servants must not allow their personal political views to determine their actions or any advice they give related to diversity and inclusion in any part of their employment. This includes when carrying out Government duties, such as developing policy, or engaging in learning and development or participating in staff networks. It will ensure civil servants can carry out their work while retaining the confidence of Ministers and the public, and uphold the political impartiality required by the civil service code.
Further guidance on diversity staff networks will follow, and we will seek to publish additional data on historical spending to assist transparency in this area. We will also consider how such best practice can be embedded across the public sector.
We want to ensure that everyone has the equal opportunity to go as far in life as their ambition will take them. As set out in the “Inclusive Britain” report, lack of opportunity should not be seen through the prism of identity politics. We do not believe that any group is less intrinsically capable than any other. We know that while ability is spread across the country that has not always been the case when it comes to opportunity.
That is why we have already moved over 18,000 roles out of London, including to new offices across the United Kingdom. Diversity in the civil service should never just be measured in terms of race or sex; it should also be about background and differences of opinion—and, above all, merit.
Increasing social mobility and ending geographical inequalities are core to levelling up. It is essential that we mirror this ambition across the civil service to ensure that those developing and delivering our policies reflect and draw upon the widest range of experiences and skills that exist across the populations we serve.
Copies of the associated guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS464]
Covid-19 Inquiry: Response Costs Quarter 4 2023-24
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement: Quarter 1-3 Quarter 4 Cumulative Total Cost of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit—including contingent labour costs £12,900,000 £5,100,000 £18,000,000 Number of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff—full-time equivalents 249 265 Quarter 1-3 Quarter 4 Cumulative Total Total legal costs £20,900,000 £5,300,000 £26,200,000
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, the Government acted to save lives and livelihoods, prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, and deliver a world-leading vaccine roll-out which protected the nation. In establishing the UK covid-19 inquiry, the Government recognised the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future.
As such, the inquiry is unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
The Government remain fully committed to transparency throughout this process. The UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly; the most recent update, covering costs for quarter 4 of the 2023-2024 financial year, was published on 9 May. The Government’s response to the inquiry is a significant undertaking and accordingly, the Government have updated Parliament on the UK Government costs associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department.
Figures provided are based upon a sample of departmental costs, and are not precise figures for accounting purposes. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The senior civil servant staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the covid inquiry are significant. Those costs are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of Staff and Costs
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.
Number of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff: 265 full-time equivalents (Q4).
Cost of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff: £5,100,000—including contingent labour costs—(Q4).
Total Inquiry Response Unit Legal Costs
Inquiry response units across Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs—excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs—for January to March 2024 are below.
Total legal costs: £5,300,000—as of Q4.
[HCWS462]
Second UK Farm to Fork Summit
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Today the Prime Minister will host the second UK Farm to Fork summit alongside Government Ministers at No.10 Downing Street, recognising the crucial importance of the farming and food sector. The annual event will bring together representatives from across the supply chain to discuss some of the key challenges and growth opportunities that lie ahead, reaffirming our plans to bolster food security and support a resilient and profitable food and farming sector. The event will build on the progress made since last year’s successful summit, including work to embed fairness in supply chains, investment to unlock innovative new technologies, cutting unnecessary red tape and boosting exports of our great British food.
Despite the challenges farmers have faced in recent months, with the wettest 18 months on record in England, as well as the impacts of covid and the war in Ukraine, food businesses have continued to put food on our plates, day in, day out. The summit therefore reflects the crucial importance of the farming and food sector to our nation and provides an opportunity to explore how to turbocharge the sector as an engine for growth. To coincide with the event, the Government have set out a new package of measures to boost food security and support domestic production. This includes plans to:
Boost the production of UK fruit and vegetables. Today we have published a draft of the first ever UK food security index, which will allow us to monitor short-term trends across the UK. It complements the three-yearly UK food security report which focuses on longer-term trends. Alongside the index, we have published our blueprint for growing the UK fruit and vegetable sector, which aims to boost production of fresh produce and reduce reliance on imports. This is backed by our new horticulture resilience and growth offer, through which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will look to double to £80 million the amount of funding given to horticulture businesses when compared to the EU legacy fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which will be replaced from 2026 onwards. An improved, comprehensive, and simplified offer will recognise the producer organisation model, while at the same time bringing individual businesses within scope for support, with up to £10 million being made available to help orchard growers access the equipment, technology and infrastructure they need to produce more great British fruit.
Provide further support for farmers affected by the recent wet weather. Building on our commitment to extend the farming recovery fund to support farmers who have been flooded, temporary adjustments will be made for farmers and land managers where the wet weather has led to difficulties carrying out the requirements of our environmental land management schemes. Next week we will be setting out the detail of the £75 million fund to support internal drainage boards to accelerate recovery from the winter 2023-24 storms, and provide opportunities to modernise and upgrade assets that support resilience for farms and rural communities.
Invest in innovation to help our food system to be even more productive and resilient, thanks to British science. We have responded to the Shropshire review, ensuring that the sector has the labour it needs and funding to support greater automation in the sector. This includes extending the seasonal visa route for five years (2025 to 29), with 43,000 visas available for horticulture and 2,000 for poultry in 2025 to address immediate need. We will agree a taper for this period with industry, supporting them to transition away from migrant workers by increasing by up to £50 million the existing support for agri-innovation available from within the farming innovation budget. We are also unlocking the opportunities of gene editing, with a £15 million investment into genetic improvement networks, helping to boost access to more resilient crop varieties that require fewer inputs, and to cut farmer costs. We will launch a new endemic disease scheme, with over £80 million of funding, and create an infrastructure grant for laying hens, with over £20 million of funding, as part of the animal health and welfare pathway.
Grasp opportunities to add value at all stages of the supply chain. That includes supporting farmers to get a fair price for their products by announcing the next steps in the supply chain reviews for eggs, fresh produce and pigs. In all three sectors, we are introducing legislation to enhance fairness and transparency. We are also appointing the new supply chain adjudicator, Richard Thompson, who will focus on ensuring that fairness in the supply chain is effectively enforced, and making up to £3 million in support available for new and mobile abattoirs through the farming investment fund. This builds on the small abattoir fund, which opened last year to boost the sustainability and efficiency of smaller red meat and poultry abattoirs across England. We will also remove the 16-week derogation period for the labelling of free-range eggs produced by hens that are under mandatory housing orders due to avian influenza. And we are confirming the appointment of a commissioner for the tenant farming sector, delivering on a commitment in our response to the Rock review. The commissioner will provide a neutral, confidential point of contact, and advice for tenants, landlords and advisors who have concerns about poor behaviour.
Support the next generation of farmers and workers within the food system, helping to build a high-skilled workforce that attracts the best domestic minds. We are already collaborating with the Food and Drink Sector Council on how to make the sector more attractive to the next generation. We will further improve awareness of job opportunities and career paths through the development of regional recruitment strategies, reviewing the current education and skills offerings in the food supply chain, and creating a public facing workforce data product for the food supply chain.
Fulfilling the Prime Minister’s priority to turbocharge the farming and food sector as an engine for growth, the Government will continue to work hand in hand with the industry to champion UK food and drink, both at home and abroad, helping the food supply chain to grow, manufacture and sell more British food. A new DEFRA-chaired senior officials food leadership group will bring together Whitehall Departments to help drive progress.
[HCWS460]
Drug and Alcohol Treatment
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
The Government’s landmark 10-year drug strategy “From harm to hope” committed to developing a comprehensive workforce strategy to rebuild the drug and alcohol treatment and recovery workforce. Improving and expanding treatment and recovery services is central to the drug strategy mission, and this cannot be achieved without a resilient, well-trained, and properly supported workforce. The strategy also highlighted the importance of naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal drug, in preventing deaths, and our commitment to reviewing legislation to make it more easily accessible for those at risk.
The drug strategy was backed by an additional initial three-year investment of £532 million between 2022 and 2025 to improve the capacity and quality of drug and alcohol treatment. This funding is supporting the expansion of the workforce by the end of 2024-25 with:
800 more medical, mental health and other regulated professionals
950 additional drug and alcohol and criminal justice workers
Additional commissioning and co-ordinator capacity in every local authority
We know that recruitment and retention of a high-quality drug treatment workforce is crucial to ensuring we can deliver a world class drug treatment system. In the first year of this additional funding, the sector recruited over 170 medical, mental health and other regulated professionals and 1,250 drug and alcohol workers. The 2022-23 drug strategy recruitment targets for nurses, social workers and pharmacists were achieved.
We are today publishing the strategic plan for the drug and alcohol treatment and recovery workforce. The strategic plan has been developed by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and NHS England through extensive sector engagement. It sets out the path to developing a sustainable, multidisciplinary drug and alcohol treatment and recovery workforce, equipped with the skills to reduce the harm of problematic drug and alcohol use and help more people initiate and sustain recovery, by 2034.
The key elements of the plan are to:
provide clarity on the roles required to deliver effective drug and alcohol treatment and recovery services through the development and implementation of the capability framework;
develop training programmes in line with the capability framework and standardise and accredit training for drug and alcohol workers;
increase the professional mix in the sector, attracting and retaining more medics, nurses, psychologists, social workers and pharmacists;
significantly improve the quality and coverage of clinical supervision and enhance clinical governance systems;
develop the pipeline of regulated professionals entering the system.
In addition, we are also today publishing the Government response to the consultation proposals to expand access to take-home naloxone supplies. This consultation ran for six weeks and sought views on proposed changes to who can supply naloxone without a prescription. We received over 300 responses spanning all four nations of the UK and included responses from a variety of organisations and individuals such as charities, NHS trusts, housing services and drug and alcohol treatment workers. Of these responses, approximately 95% agreed with the proposals we set out.
The volume of responses and breadth of support for the changes we outlined from across the UK demonstrates the importance of expanding access to this lifesaving medication. On this basis, we are proceeding with plans which will do this through two routes:
First, by expanding the list of services and professionals named in legislation who are able to supply take-home naloxone without a prescription.
Secondly, by establishing a registration service enabling professionals and services not named in the legislation to, subject to appropriate training and safeguarding, supply take- home naloxone.
These changes, alongside the publication of the strategic plan, mark an important step forward. Widening access to naloxone will prevent the number of deaths from opioid overdose, and the workforce plan provides a foundation for better and more consistent training, career progression and longer-term workforce planning for the drug and alcohol treatment and recovery workforce. This is a clear demonstration of this Government’s ongoing commitment to making the ambitions of the drug strategy a reality and delivering world-class treatment and recovery systems of care across England.
[HCWS463]
High Streets
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
Today, we publish the response to the high street rental auction consultation that was launched last year. We sought views on matters relating to the delivery of high street rental auctions and, today, I am pleased to announce the findings. This is a significant step in responding to landlords, tenants, industry bodies and local authorities, clarifying the design of this important new power.
Among a number of topics, the consultation response outlines how minimum energy efficiency standards will operate in relation to a high street rental auction, and responds to questions raised on the new permitted development right which will be introduced. This is a significant milestone prior to the publication of guidance and the launch of high street rental auctions.
The high street is the beating heart of every town and city. A thriving high street is the centre of a community, a place for socialising, shopping and doing business. They are a snapshot of a place, signalling how well the regional economy is faring. However, our high streets are facing tough times, and when retail and hospitality businesses are under stress the blight of vacant buildings tends to follow. Empty properties lead to a vicious spiral of decline, where fewer shops lead to less visitors, and our once vibrant town centres dwindle.
The Government are working hard to revive the nation’s high streets. We designed high street rental auctions to allow all councils to level up economic growth in their communities and improve pride in place. High street rental auctions, which will apply to England only, are part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 which will allow local authorities to require landlords to let their empty high street shops through an auction, achieving a rental lease of between one and five years for a suitable high street use. This permissive power will be further articulated in secondary legislation, with the powers coming into force this summer.
I will be writing to local authorities and sector stakeholders reminding them of the introduction of this new power and the significant role it will play in tackling vacancy.
I will place a copy of the consultation response in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS461]