Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
My Department attended the Grangemouth industrial just transition leadership forum alongside Scotland Office Ministers and representatives of Unite the union on 28 March. We remain in close contact with the Scottish Government and the owner Petroineos. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero met Scottish Government counterparts and Petroineos management on 15 May and raised the importance of working with the unions.
Kenny MacAskill
Warm words are one thing; tangible support is quite another. If Grangemouth closes, Scotland faces the possibility—indeed, the probability—of being the only major oil producing nation without refinery capacity, yet €700 million has been found by the UK Government to support an Ineos plant in Antwerp while not a penny is available for Grangemouth. Is it to be a Brexit bonus for Belgian workers and a P45 for those Scots at the refinery?
Claire Coutinho
We are working with the Scottish Government and Petroineos to understand all possible options for the future of the refinery. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives are the only major party who are backing the North sea, the biddings it brings in each year and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that it supports, while a new report last week showed that Labour’s plan could lose as many as 100,000 jobs in the next five years.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
We are on track to reach net zero by 2050, and we will do so in a way that brings the public with us. We overachieved on our third carbon budget by 15%, and we announce today that we will not be rolling that over as we think that we will be able to overperform on carbon budget 4 as well.
Henry Smith
I congratulate the Government on us being one of the first major economies in the world to set out the ambition for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport with regard to a revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation, as well as ensuring that feedstock for sustainable aviation fuels takes priority?
Claire Coutinho
I know from experience that my hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his local area and for the aviation sector. My Department is in regular contact with the Department for Transport and the Treasury on aviation decarbonisation and the important role for sustainable aviation fuel in that transition. On 25 April, DFT published a consultation on options for a revenue certainty mechanism alongside details of the SAF mandate, which together will support both decarbonation and the growth of the sector.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
Tapadh, Mr Speaker.
There are many criticisms of the Government—I am sure they are aware of them—that they are too slow and indecisive about giving signals to the market for particular technologies, which means that, when they need to commission new energy, they are stuck with only one option: gas, which, as we know, is not exactly the way to net zero. What will the Secretary of State be doing to move things a bit quicker and give the market signals as to which energy path the UK will be taking?
Claire Coutinho
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have one of the most remarkable records when it comes to renewable energies. The only country that has built more offshore wind than us is China, we have set out the largest expansion for nuclear, and we are at the forefront of cutting-edge technologies such as fusion, hydrogen and carbon capture.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Meeting our net zero targets, which will be extremely difficult and eye-wateringly expensive, has been enforced on my constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must be more honest and open about the enormous costs of net zero on the British taxpayer? Will the Government commit to publishing a detailed analysis of those costs in advance of my Westminster Hall debate?
Claire Coutinho
There is a balance to be struck, which I believe we are striking, in ensuring that we can make the most of the jobs and opportunities of the energy transition, which will support up to 480,000 green jobs in 2030. But, yes, when it comes to additional costs, we are taking a measured approach because we want to protect households.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report, it was made clear:
“There continues to be an overly narrow approach to solutions, which crucially does not embrace the need to reduce demand for high-carbon activities.”
So when the Secretary of State goes back to the drawing board to revise the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan, as she now must, will she finally reduce the reliance on unproven technofixes and look instead at demand reduction measures—or, following the recent embarrassing judgment from the High Court, is she aiming for a hat-trick, with her Department’s climate plan declared unlawful for a third time?
Claire Coutinho
I would find the hon. Lady’s questions more credible if she would at least once welcome the fact that we are the first country in the G20 to have halved emissions. On our progress, I am proud that one of the reasons that we have come so far is technological fixes, because of the remarkable progress that this country has made in renewable energy. That is why we overshot on our first, second and third carbon budgets, and we are on track to overshoot on our fourth.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Two weeks ago the Government were found, for a second time, to be in breach of the law over their climate targets. That failure will mean that families across the country will pay higher energy bills. The Court found:
“The Secretary of State’s conclusion that the proposals and policies will enable the carbon budgets to be met was irrational”.
Last time, the Government claimed that their breach of the law was just on a technicality. What is the right hon. Lady’s “dog ate my homework” excuse this time?
Claire Coutinho
Let us be clear: the Court did not question the policies that we have set out, which we have done in more detail than any of our peers. It did not question the progress that we have already made, as the first G20 country in the world to halve emissions, and it did not question the ambition of our future targets, which are among the most ambitious of our peers. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at what would smother the transition and private investment in this country, he need only look at his own mad, unachievable 2030 target.
Edward Miliband
With a defence like that, I can see why the Government lost in court not just once but twice. Buried in the court documents is the confidential memo that reveals the real reason they lost the case—officials were telling Ministers that they had low or very low confidence that half their carbon reductions would be achieved. That is why they were found unlawful. The right hon. Lady comes to the House each month with her complacent nonsense, but the court judgment exposes the truth: the Government are way off track, abysmally failing to meet the climate emergency and pushing up bills for families as a result.
Claire Coutinho
I have learned in this role that the right hon. Gentleman likes to call people who disagree with him names. Last week, representatives from the Tony Blair Institute said that his plans would raise bills and harm our energy security. Are they flat earthers? An industry report said last week said that his plans would see up to 100,000 people lose their jobs. Are those people who are worried climate deniers? When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his plans are based on fantasy and ideology and are the last thing that this country needs?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Liz Twist
Every family in Britain is paying the price for the Government’s failure on energy, with bills through the roof while oil and gas profits have soared. A publicly owned clean energy company would allow us to take back control of our energy, cutting bills and creating jobs across the UK. Why are the Government letting their ideological stubbornness get in the way of supporting families, when they could follow other, successful countries and set up a publicly owned clean energy company like Great British Energy?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think that consumers will. The TUC itself has highlighted the potential £61 billion to £82 billion cost that will be landed either at the taxpayer’s doorstep or directly on to consumers’ bills, which is nothing to be thankful for.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
In 1985, just before privatisation, 4.2% of total consumer spending was on energy bills. Between 2000 and 2020, that dropped to between 2% and 3%. Even last year during the war in Ukraine, it only hit 3.6%. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he has already said, the suggestion from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) would wallop consumers?
Justin Tomlinson
We have to work with businesses to secure investment. We have secured £300 billion for low-carbon technologies since 2010, as we boost UK energy production, our energy security and, ultimately, deliver cheaper bills for consumers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
When it comes to who controls and benefits from our energy system, why does the Government refuse to put the British people first? As we have heard, foreign-owned firms, whether France’s EDF or Denmark’s Ørsted, reap the rewards of energy produced in Britain. As they benefit British people pay the price, exposed to sky-high energy bills and beholden to volatile international prices. Why is the Minister so opposed to putting power back into the hands of the British people?
Justin Tomlinson
There is not a single country around the world that thinks Governments alone can deliver increased energy security. By working with businesses, we can unlock the private investment to do it. And talk about irrational: imagine a career politician, the shadow Secretary of State, running UK energy. Consumer bills would rocket.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister is completely missing the point, so I will use a real-world example. In Bristol, we have set up the 20-year Bristol City Leap project with Ameresco and Vattenfall, a partnership between the public and private sector that will help the city to cut carbon dioxide, bring down bills and deliver green jobs. Actually, the Government are piloting a similar project in York, because it has been such a success in Bristol. But why should it be Vattenfall, a 100% Swedish state-owned firm, rather than a British equivalent, such as Labour’s GB Energy, that benefits? Why can Swedish taxpayers profit from investing in our future, but British taxpayers cannot?
Justin Tomlinson
Politicians with zero business experience are high risk. It was not so long ago that the shadow energy security Minister highlighted the success of Robin Hood Energy, backed by Nottingham City Council, which delivered a £38 million loss.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Justin Tomlinson)
Our pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach to meeting net zero will capitalise on the opportunities of the low-carbon transition, creating jobs and investment across the UK.
Andrew Bridgen
The cost of net zero is being borne by our hard-pressed constituents, at the same time as China increases its carbon dioxide emissions by more than the UK’s total emissions every year. Wholesale electricity prices are currently £65 per megawatt, but we are paying £102 per megawatt for fixed offshore wind, offering £246 for floating offshore wind, £89 for onshore wind, and £85 for solar. Can the Minister explain whatever happened to plentiful, cheap renewable energy?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member and I agree that we must champion the importance of delivering cheaper bills for consumers. This does not have to be a binary choice between tackling climate change and delivering cheaper consumer bills. By investing in a cleaner, more efficient energy system, we can do both.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The benefits of renewables cannot come at any cost. In that spirit, I welcome the commitment of the Secretary of State and in particular the Minister to protect food security through the additional protections of versatile and productive agricultural land. Will the Minister also affirm the Government’s determination to protect areas that are particularly affected by energy infrastructure—pylons, wind and solar—such as the Lincolnshire fens, the Somerset levels and Romney Marsh? Food security matters just as much as energy security in the national interest for the common good.
Justin Tomlinson
We are proud to have taken renewables from just 7% under the last Labour Government to 47% today, but my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the need to tackle clustering. The Secretary of State reiterated clear guidelines and advice for local authorities and planning committees up and down the country to make sure that we safeguard, wherever possible, our key agricultural lands as part of our commitment on food security.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Communities in Westmorland cannot afford for us not to be reducing carbon emissions. I think of communities such as Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and Kendal, all of which are listed as energy crisis hotspots. That means they have below average incomes, but above average energy prices. There are over 10,000 homes in need of loft insulation and 6,940 homes in need of cavity wall insulation in my communities. Will the Minister give resources to the excellent Cumbria Action for Sustainability to meet that need and decrease bills, and also perhaps revise the rules for ECO4 so the scheme better fits older homes in rural areas such as ours?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member. As on football, we agree on the principles. The Government are proud to have taken energy-efficient homes from 14% to 50%. Local initiatives can play a key part in that and I would be interested to learn more about the project he highlighted.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Decarbonisation is welcome, but it must be achieved in a way that balances the country’s other priorities, such as food security. I welcome last week’s statement from the Secretary of State about the importance of protecting our best and most versatile farmland, but can the Minister tell me more about how he will ensure that we prioritise solar power on rooftops instead?
Justin Tomlinson
The Government are proud to have delivered an additional 43 GW of renewable energy since 2010 alone. We have also introduced planning changes to make it easier to install solar panels on rooftops, including those of industrial buildings, and we can thank consumers for leading the way: an average of 17,000 households a month added solar panels to their roofs last year.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The price cap has fallen by 60% since the start of last year, and the Government are taking a comprehensive approach to bring down future energy bills for consumers. That includes reforming electricity markets to make them more effective, investing across the energy system to make it smarter, and investing in energy efficiency to reduce costs for households.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for her answer, but I want her to understand that for constituents such as mine in Romford energy prices are becoming completely unaffordable, and the Government need to do more. My constituents are also very concerned about the cost of net zero, and we need to know what that will cost them in years to come. Surely the Government need to take the British people with them on these policies, but at present there is a great deal of scepticism.
Amanda Solloway
That is certainly one of the Department’s aims. We are very conscious that we must get that energy security while also helping all the vulnerable households—and non-domestic businesses—that need our support.
Steve Tuckwell
A significant number of households in my constituency who are experiencing the continued impact of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and unrest in the middle east have received help in the form of the Government’s cost of living support payments. Those payments are welcome, but does the Minister agree that this important support should continue, along with more information about the help that is available and how to gain access to it?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and of course I agree with him about the importance of ensuring that householders know where to obtain information about what they may be able to receive, especially as we are providing them with £108 billion between 2022 and 2025. I recommend that they visit the Help for Households web page on gov.uk to find out what support they may be entitled to.
Simon Baynes
Many rural properties on the Welsh borders—including those in Clwyd South and in neighbouring north Shropshire—are not connected to mains gas and therefore use oil or liquefied petroleum gas for heating, and many of the residents are unaware of the support that is available to help with their energy bills. Can the Minister tell the House what support the Government are providing for those residents?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We are, of course, helping all those households. The Government supported about 3 million households using alternative fuels with the £200 alternative fuel payments in the winter of 2022-23, and although energy prices, including alternative fuel costs, have fallen significantly since then, we are nevertheless committed to supporting all households with that £108 billion package between 2022 and 2025.
Mrs Murray
I have just had some solar panels fitted to my roof and I am pleased to report that they are reducing my bills, but what more are the Government doing to encourage people to produce their own electricity by means of renewables, in order to reduce the pull on the grid and also reduce bills?
Amanda Solloway
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend has had those solar panels fitted. She will be interested to hear that the Government are considering options to facilitate low-cost finance from retail lenders to help households with the up-front costs of installation, and to drive rooftop deployment and energy efficiency measures.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I know of too many cases in which people whose properties are connected to heat networks are paying extremely high energy bills. I welcome the Department’s response to the consultation on heat networks, but the Energy Act 2023 only allows for Secretaries of State to introduce a price cap, at their discretion. Some of my constituents are paying bills that are 13 times the level of the cap. Will the Minister consider a mandatory cap to ensure fair prices for heat network customers?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Of course, the price cap is an issue for Ofgem. However, I would be interested to hear some of her suggestions and I am always happy to have a meeting on that particular subject.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Fuel and extreme fuel poverty across the highlands and islands is higher than anywhere else in the UK, yet families there are forced to pay the highest electricity standing charges in the UK—50% more than in London, for example. That is despite the region exporting in excess of six times the amount of renewable electricity that it uses. When will the Government introduce a highland energy rebate to ensure fairness for people across the highlands and islands?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have had many conversations about this subject. One of the things that the Secretary of State and I have been doing is talking to Ofgem to make sure that it is looking at the standing charges. That has led to a call for input, which has recently had over 30,000 responses.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My constituent Beverley Scott, who has cancer, suffered from poor work carried out under the Government’s ECO4 scheme. This included leaving her without heating and damaging her internet. She eventually had to go to the small claims court to get redress for shoddy work, and I know of other people who have had to follow the same route. Given that provider companies, enabled by Government strategy, leave vulnerable householders with no option but to go to court, does the Minister not agree that there should be better oversight and a simpler remedy for people like Beverley Scott?
Amanda Solloway
The right hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. Of course, one of the things that we are determined to do is make sure that those installations are carried out in the correct manner. In fact, we have new regulations in place to make sure that that happens going forward.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister will know that I am concerned about the level of standing charges in my constituency, as I have discussed this issue with her before. One of the problems is that people with pre-payment meters often find that, when they go to add the payment, the standing charges wipe everything out. Can the Government and Ofgem find a way to provide more support for those on pre-payment meters to avoid that problem?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Lady and I have had many conversations about this issue. One of the things that we have done is make sure that people who are on pre-payment meters are not unfairly penalised.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister and her colleagues have repeatedly said today that they care about cutting bills for families, but a recent report by the Resolution Foundation found that the onshore wind ban has hit the poorest households’ income six times harder than that of the richest. Such households have been forced to pay additional electricity bills as a result of the total failure to build onshore wind in England. How on earth can Ministers continue to sit there and claim that they stand up for working families when they continue to block the cheapest form of clean energy there is, which could cut bills for families who desperately need help? Before she leaves office, will the Secretary of State pledge to put this right so that onshore wind can be built again and customers can save money on their future bills?
Amanda Solloway
That is absolutely not the case. We stand here incredibly proudly as Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and we have made a commitment. We are doing more than has ever been done on renewables and offshore wind, and we have done more to help people with the affordability of their bills.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The social housing decarbonisation fund is upgrading to EPC C a significant amount of the social housing stock that is currently below that standard. We have already committed over £1 billion of Government funding, with a further £1.25 billion already committed for 2025 to 2028.
Sir Desmond Swayne
By how much has the Minister increased the level of insulation, and what significance does she attach to it?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my right hon. Friend for his brevity, as always. The amount of social housing that is well insulated has gone up from just 24% in 2010 to 70% today. For housing overall, we have gone from just 14% in 2010 to 50% today.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome, through the Minister, the admission by the Secretary of State last week finally that this flagship scheme is failing, although the words she used were that it has been
“a bit slow on the uptake”.
They have had 14 years to devise the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions and people’s bills, making homes warmer and creating good new skilled jobs. When will we have a scheme that actually works?
Amanda Solloway
I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do have schemes that are working. I remind him that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a £1 billion Great British installation scheme, which aims to upgrade around 300,000 of the country’s least energy-efficient homes.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Scottish Government are working at pace to replace polluting heating systems and improve energy efficiency in Scotland’s building stock, with £1.8 billion being invested in this parliamentary Session towards heat and energy efficiency measures and £600 million towards new affordable housing. With the Climate Change Committee stating that the Scottish Government’s heat in buildings Bill could become the template for the UK, helping Scotland to decarbonise faster than anywhere else in the UK, would the Minister like to visit the Scottish Government in Edinburgh? I can arrange that for her, so that she can see climate leadership in action.
Amanda Solloway
I reiterate that energy efficiency is incredibly important to us on the Government Benches and to the Government. I would be happy to come on a visit to Edinburgh. Indeed, I have already visited there.
Dave Doogan
Slightly more enthusiasm might have been welcomed by people living in England in cold and draughty houses. Nevertheless, it is not simply our extensive ambition that leaves the UK behind Scotland, but our delivery, too. Since 2007—[Interruption.] Those on the Government Benches might want to listen to this. Since 2007, per person, the SNP has built 40% more homes than Tory England and 70% more homes than Labour Wales and ensured 65% of the Scottish social rented sector has an energy performance certificate rating of C or above. Insulation levels in Scotland are way higher than in England. It is clear that the UK Government have materially failed to abate the demand side of the energy system to any meaningful extent. What will the Minister do, in the few weeks they have left in office, to atone for this glaring betrayal of bill payers?
Amanda Solloway
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we have not abandoned our targets, and there has been good progress and improved household energy efficiency. Around half of our homes—48% in England—have now reached the Government’s 2035 target of achieving an EPC rating of C, up from 14% in 2010.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Justin Tomlinson)
Britain is the first major economy to halve emissions, while growing the economy by 80%. We have more ambitious targets for 2030 than the EU, with the UK aiming for a 68% reduction in emissions, compared with its 55%. We have over-achieved on all carbon budgets to date and remain on track for the next.
Afzal Khan
At COP28, the UK, alongside nearly 200 countries, agreed to the transition away from fossil fuels. Since then, the Government have recklessly granted new oil and gas licences and pushed legislation through this House to max out North sea fossil fuels. Will the Minister meet the 50 cross-party parliamentarians who last week signed a letter urging the Government to show climate leadership and join the Beyond Oil and Gas Allowance, which aims to phase out oil and gas production ahead of COP29?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue. That is why we are proud that we have already taken 70% out of the oil and gas sector.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Hydrotreated vegetable oil is a good alternative to ripping out heating systems that already exist in rural homes. We have heard today about the cost to rural homes as we try to address the impact of using less fossil fuels. Will the Government get behind the opportunity for HVO in rural communities to give householders a chance to contribute to reducing harmful emissions in their homes?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has always championed his local constituents to ensure that they get value for money. We must explore all potential options, local or national, to find the best way to deliver energy security and lower bills in future.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The evaluation of our energy support schemes will conclude in summer 2025. To ensure their bills were fair, supported heat network customers received an average of £1,200 via the energy discount scheme, which closed last month.
Tommy Sheppard
That is rather disappointing. I have more than 100 constituents in the Greendykes area of Edinburgh who get their heating and hot water from a communal district heating scheme. The Government have refused to offer them price protection, saying instead that this should be regulated by the business regulation scheme, but that ended on 31 March, leaving those people with no protection at all and facing increases of up to 500% in their energy bills. My constituents want to know: why did the Government wait until the business scheme finished before considering alternative protection for these domestic customers? Why take a year to get them protected and what compensation are the Government going to offer in the meantime?
Andrew Bowie
I hear the passion with which the hon. Gentleman stands up for his constituents, and rightly so, given the circumstances that they find themselves in. We are introducing regulations with Ofgem powers to investigate and intervene where prices for consumers appear to be unfair, and to ensure that all heat network consumers receive a high-quality service from their providers. I am happy to meet him to discuss this in greater detail.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
District heating networks are a good innovation and the Government have a good record of stimulating these projects around the country, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is right to say that the regulation in this area needs looking at. Can I reassert what he has just said and ask the Minister to carefully come forward with protections to ensure that consumers on shared heating networks are not at a disadvantage compared with people who pay their bills directly?
Andrew Bowie
I am pleased to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. As I have said, we are talking to Ofgem right now about introducing regulations to make this much fairer and simpler and to ensure that consumers on heat networks get the service that they deserve.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The planning decision is devolved to the Scottish Government. Officials will work together to resolve cross-border matters. The UK Government are committed to effective co-operation with the Scottish Government on this and other issues, supporting our shared energy security and net zero objectives.
Michael Shanks
I thank the Minister for his answer and for the promise that officials will work together, but he will be aware that this is a 4.1 GW renewables project that could be the largest offshore wind farm in the world, delivering over £8 billion to the UK economy. The only reason that it is not eligible for this year’s contract for difference auction is the Scottish Government’s failure to make a decision on consent for the project. Has the Minister or anyone in his Department spoken to Scottish Ministers about the impact of this decision on investment in our economy, and to ensure that the consenting for offshore wind process is sped up so that we do not miss out on the tens of billions of investment and the thousands of jobs that a project such as this would deliver?
Andrew Bowie
The UK Government work closely and collaboratively with the Scottish Government on a whole host of areas, especially energy security and net zero. However, this is a live planning issue, and whether it is in the jurisdiction of Westminster or Holyrood, we do not comment on live planning cases given their quasi-judicial status.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The civil nuclear road map reconfirmed the Government’s ambition to deploy up to 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. The road map sets out plans to make investment decisions concerning 3 GW to 7 GW every five years between 2030 and 2044.
Bob Blackman
Clearly it is important to have a mixed economy in terms of energy production, and nuclear has to play its part. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the development of small modular nuclear reactors is enhanced and brought forward, because that is the fastest way to get nuclear energy into our network?
Andrew Bowie
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The small modular reactor technology selection process—the fastest of its kind in the world, I might add—continues to progress quickly and is currently in the tender phase, allowing vendors to bid for potentially multibillion-pound technology development contracts. Companies will have until June to submit their tender responses, at which point Great British Energy will evaluate bids and negotiate final contracts. The aim is to announce successful bids later this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is always quick and keen to ensure that all parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have advantages. When it comes to the technology to which the question refers, when will Northern Ireland get the same advantage?
Andrew Bowie
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am keen to ensure that every part of our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefits from the expansion of nuclear power and the benefits that it can bring, not only for meeting our net zero objectives but for the economies in which these small modular reactors will be built. I would be happy to meet him at any time to explore what benefits can be accrued in Northern Ireland from the expansion of our nuclear capacity here in the UK.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government are immensely proud of our record on climate change. We have cut emissions faster than any other G20 country over the last decade. The judgment contains no criticism of our detailed plans or the policies themselves, which will keep the UK on track to meet net zero by 2050.
Nadia Whittome
The Government have a legal and moral duty to meet our carbon emissions target. Failure to do so would consign my generation, and generations after mine, to a future of climate catastrophe, so it is beyond a joke that the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan has now been ruled unlawful, not just once but twice. When will the Minister tell the flat earthers sitting behind him to stop trying to make net zero a culture war issue, and instead deliver a transition that both meets our climate obligations and improves people’s living standards?
Justin Tomlinson
Our carbon budget delivery plan has over 300 detailed policies. We are recognised as a leader internationally, having already cut emissions by half—the first major economy to do so—with a further ambitious target to get to 68% by 2030, compared with just 55% for the shadow Secretary of State’s beloved EU.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The energy suppliers are responsible for paying compensation. They have carried out 150,000 assessments so far, with 2,500 customers due compensation. A total of 1,502 payments have been made, with 1,000 more planned.
Dan Carden
Despite the energy ombudsman ruling that one of my constituents should not have been placed on a prepayment meter due to her vulnerabilities, she has not been awarded a penny of compensation under the scheme. As the Minister has just outlined, only 1,500 people, out of 150,000, have had any compensation awarded at all. That is 1%, so why is the number so small? Could it be that the energy suppliers themselves, overseen by Ofgem, are deciding who is entitled to these payments? Both sat idly by as agents forced their way into people’s homes to install the prepayment meters.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the opportunity to provide clarity. The forced installation of prepayment meters is clearly unacceptable, and the Government have done everything we can to counteract it. However, I reiterate that 150,000 investigations were carried out, in 2,500 of those cases compensation is due and, instead of 1%, the actual figure on compensation is 60%.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The policy on fuel poverty is devolved. Statistics for England estimate that 3.17 million households were in fuel poverty in 2023, which is more than 1.5 million fewer than in 2010.
Keir Mather
The best way to cut fuel poverty is through a nationwide home upgrade scheme, but the Secretary of State seems unaware of the reality when it comes to home upgrades. Her officials said in recent documents given to the High Court that progress to decarbonise the UK’s building stock has been slow, that policy gaps remain and that the Government are lagging behind. Why will she not admit in public what her Department tells her in private?
Amanda Solloway
This Government are committed to making sure that we not only get energy efficiency but support people with their energy bills.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Thanks to Government grants, a social housing provider in my Chelmsford constituency, CHP, has made some great investments in social housing to help energy efficiency, reduce bills and lower fuel poverty, but it would like to go further. Will the Minister discuss with me the ways in which we can help to share the benefits of those savings so that some of them can be invested in improving energy efficiency and lowering bills in even more homes?
Amanda Solloway
My right hon. Friend makes the important point that energy efficiency is crucial to lowering bills. That is why we have the social housing decarbonisation fund, which supports local authorities and housing associations in upgrading social housing stock below energy performance certificate level C.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Justin Tomlinson)
Our Department’s ministerial team meet regularly with industry, for example through the hydrogen investor forum, the Offshore Wind Industry Council, the solar taskforce, the green jobs delivery group, and the cross-cutting Net Zero Council.
Justin Madders
Last week, Stellantis, the owner of the Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port, announced that it would import electric vehicles, despite the fact that we produce some great electric vans in Ellesmere Port and want to move on to producing cars there as well. Does the Minister think that, over the long term, reaching our net zero targets through the import of cheaper Chinese vehicles will be a good or bad thing for the UK car industry?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member raises a very important point. One of the Opposition’s main pledges, which is to fully decarbonise the grid by 2030, could be met only by opening the floodgates to cheap Chinese imports—the exact thing he is opposed to.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Many unwelcome applications for large-scale solar farms, such as Lime Down in my constituency, are funded by offshore companies such as Macquarie, which is most famous for letting Thames Water fall to pieces. What meetings has the Minister had with these speculative investors to ensure that the people who build solar farms will be there in 40 years to make sure that they are removed?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour raises an important point about speculative development. As part of speeding up the grid queue, in which we have somewhere in the region of 700 GW of power capacity coming forward, we wish to prioritise shovel-ready schemes, not speculative schemes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, we have been building up Britain’s energy security. We have taken the next step in the biggest expansion of nuclear in 70 years, making Britain a producer of advanced nuclear fuel and pushing Putin out of the global energy market. Just today, Rolls-Royce announced that it will invest millions of pounds in bringing new jobs to Sheffield to manufacture small modular reactors. We have overachieved in our third carbon budget, which is keeping us on track to reach net zero, and we are building on our proud record of being the first major economy to halve emissions. We have invested over half a billion pounds to help cut energy costs and bills for schools and hospitals, and we are taking our next steps on PumpWatch to protect motorists from unfair prices.
Liz Twist
Latest figures by National Energy Action show that there are still 1,875 homes in my constituency with legacy prepayment meters. What action are the Government taking to remove this costly burden on families?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. During my career, I have looked at the issue of prepayment meters for a long time, and one of the things that I am proudest of is our taking out the premium that people on prepayment meters were paying.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
My hon. Friend makes an important point and is right to pick up on this matter. I reassure him that I have encouraged and pushed Ofgem to do more on this issue. Electricity standing charges include network costs, which reflect the cost of maintaining and upgrading the transmission and distribution networks across the country. I am of course happy to meet him to discuss this subject further.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The National Infrastructure Commission said that the Government have reversed some progress on net zero. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said that the Government’s roll-back on net zero has put off investors. A member of the Climate Change Committee has said that we are “not ready at all” for the impact of extreme weather on our national security. Mad, bad and dangerous. Will the Secretary of State finally back Great British Energy and the national wealth fund instead of lurching from crisis to crisis, not having a plan and selling out Britain?
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Justin Tomlinson)
We absolutely will not be backing putting the shadow Secretary of State in charge of UK and British energy companies, piling misery on to consumer bills. We have unlocked £300 billion of public and private investment in low-carbon technology since 2010, with plans for £100 billion more by 2030. Last year alone, we saw an investment of £60 billion; that is up a staggering 71% on the previous year.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land in this country. Unlike the Opposition, we respect the views of communities up and down this country, and we will not countenance the industrialisation of our countryside. However, solar power remains very important. We are committed to our 70 GW target. In our forthcoming solar road map, we will set out exactly how we will incentivise the development of rooftop solar, and development on brownfield and other sites.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
That is simply not the case; we are leading internationally. Last year alone, there was £60 billion of funding for low-carbon technology; that is up 71% on the previous year. That is why other countries turn to our businesses and supply chain for their expertise—and to us, as we are leading with our policy framework.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Justin Tomlinson
The Government have invested in the Faraday battery challenge, a £541 million programme to support the research, development and scale-up of world-leading battery technology in the UK. Since 2022, all new homes and homes undergoing major renovation in England have been required to have a charge point installed. That is why we welcome the year-on-year 49% increase in charge points.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Amanda Solloway
A social tariff means lots of different things to different people, but what it ultimately means is ensuring that we support all vulnerable people. The hon. Member will be aware that the Government are doing many things to support people; there is the warm home discount, the cost of living payment, which is £900, and a variety of other measures.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Andrew Bowie
As my hon. Friend has heard me say already today, solar power is important, and we remain committed to our 70 GW target. However, food security is as important as energy security when it comes to national security. That is why we are protecting the best and most versatile farmland in the United Kingdom. Unlike the Opposition, we respect the views of communities up and down the country; we will ensure that our countryside is not industrialised, and incentivise companies, individuals and organisations to invest in rooftop solar, and solar on brownfield, not greenfield, sites.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Amanda Solloway
We are ensuring that energy businesses are able to survive, and not just through the price caps. This is also a matter for Ofgem.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
My constituency is home to Scout Moor, one of the largest onshore wind farms in Europe, but the north-west also has amazing potential for offshore wind; an example is the Morgan and Morecambe development off the coast of Lancashire. Such projects require huge amounts of infrastructure to be realised. Notwithstanding the reassurances that my right hon. Friend has already given, will she ensure that community consent is part of any infrastructure projects of this kind?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Absolutely; that is part of our forward planning in making sure that we can unlock the huge potential in every region of our United Kingdom.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Gentleman’s question covers a few issues. One of the most important things is to look at how the standing charges are made up. That is why we have encouraged Ofgem to answer our call for input. Insulation schemes are incredibly important as well, which is why the Government are committed to supporting so many of them.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Hydrogen is the only viable alternative to natural gas for a balanced, reactive and carbon-zero electricity grid. The UK has 32 gas power plants, all of which could be cheaply and easily retrofitted to burn hydrogen as a natural gas. What is the Department doing to encourage this sort of retrofitting, so that we can allow technologies to decarbonise electricity generation and take advantage of the many benefits of hydrogen?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for that rather surprising question on hydrogen. The Government recognise the value of hydrogen in supporting a decarbonised and secure power system. We intend to publish soon our response to the December 2023 hydrogen-to-power market intervention consultation, and we will soon legislate for decarbonisation readiness requirements, so that new-build or substantially refurbished combustion power plants are built net zero ready.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
In the last 12 months, one in five households, or one in four young households, in energy debt have turned to illegal money lenders to help pay for bills and everyday essentials. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition has stated that the crisis could mean that young households spend years at the mercy of these loan sharks. What assessment has the Minister made of the merits of working with Ofgem and energy suppliers in order to introduce support to alleviate this record-high energy debt?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point, and I have had many conversations with her on this matter. I can reassure her that I meet Ofgem regularly to discuss this, as the issue is very close to my heart—hence the call for input. To give her further reassurance, I can tell her that earlier this week, I met energy suppliers, and I also have ongoing meetings with Citizens Advice and other stakeholders.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Like others, I welcome what the Government have already done to extend the permitted development rights for rooftop solar and car park canopies, but may I encourage my hon. Friend to tell others in Government who have responsibility for planning that there are considerable benefits to car park canopies, particularly in hotter summers?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. I urge him to bide his time and have patience, because in the next few weeks we will publish our solar road map, which will expand on exactly how we will work with other Government Departments, and indeed industry, to ensure that we benefit from the huge advantages that we have in the number of rooftops available for the deployment of solar capacity across the UK.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There has indeed been a significant increase in domestic insulation schemes in recent years. However, will the Minister agree to increase the number of conversations with devolved institutions, so that we can see a genuinely nationwide revival of insulation schemes that, individually, can do more to reduce the dependency on high energy costs for those at maximum risk, in social housing and elsewhere?
Amanda Solloway
Clearly, energy efficiency is incredibly important, which means that making sure that we get the correct insulation schemes is also incredibly important. I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that we are doing everything we can to ensure that that insulation takes place.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Given the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme funding recently awarded to Wales, can the Minister please advise me on when A&P Falmouth, which is to be a vital part of the supply chain for the only successful project in allocation round 4, will be put on the reserve list? The Minister has promised to meet me on several occasions. Can I ask that we expedite that much as possible?
Andrew Bowie
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter. Indeed, I am determined to ensure that ports that were not successful in the FLOWMIS process can take advantage of the huge increase that we expect in the deployment of floating offshore wind capacity off the coast of the United Kingdom. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and, indeed, any other Member of Parliament who represents a port that was not successful through the FLOWMIS procedure to discuss how we can move this forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Community energy can deliver so many renewable energy products and save on energy bills. Last year in Bath, a community energy project putting rooftop solar on schools saved schools £130,000. When will the Government remove the barriers to community energy?
Andrew Bowie
As a result of the Energy Act 2023, we launched a consultation and a multimillion-pound fund to help to support the expansion of community energy across the United Kingdom. It would be great to have the Liberal Democrats’ support in the effort that this party and this Government are making to ensure that the benefits of community energy are felt up and down the length and breadth of the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
As we go to net zero, surely we also need to retain our sense of human rights. Polysilicon mostly comes from Xinjiang, where it is mined using slave labour. To what extend are we prepared to say that net zero trumps slave labour, and are we checking on slave labour products in the arrays?
Andrew Bowie
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are indeed ensuring that the extent to which slave labour is used is kept very much at a minimum, if at all, in the supply chain of any of the components coming to advance us towards net zero. The solar road map, as referred to earlier, will set out in greater detail how the Government will work with industry to ensure that there are no slave labour components to any of the parts we are importing to develop our renewable technology.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent from Govanhill is being passed backwards and forwards between Utilita Energy and the Department for Work and Pensions. He receives income-related employment and support allowance and should be entitled to the warm home discount, but neither Utilita nor the DWP is able to give him the money he is entitled to. He applied in September last year. Will the Minister intervene and make sure he gets the money he is due?
Amanda Solloway
I encourage the hon. Lady to write to me on this particular issue and I will look into it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I put on record my heartfelt thanks to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Nuclear and Renewables for the action they took last week to put food security, alongside renewable energy, at the heart of local planning decisions. What are the Government doing to ensure that all councils immediately enact that policy, because it is both for local councils and for Government? Will existing soil assessments stand for nationally significant infrastructure projects, or will they be redone?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her kind words. I am pleased to confirm to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety has written to all local authorities to draw their attention to the statement last week, which underlined our robust policy on solar farms on our best and most versatile agricultural land. Local planners should know this Government are serious about solar being put in the right places, and not on the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
Tapadh leat, Mr Speaker. Zonal pricing has the potential to lower bills for households from Sussex to Shetland, from Stonehaven to the great town of Stornoway. Of course some vested interests will be concerned, such as energy generating companies that are benefiting from the constraint payments raised from customer bills. What are the Government doing to stimulate debate and knowledge about zonal pricing?
Justin Tomlinson
It was a pleasure on my return as a Minister to attend the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee, which he chairs so well. This is part of stage 2 of our wider consultation under our review of electricity market arrangements, and we take on board his and his Committee’s constructive suggestions in that meeting.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
A key tool in our arsenal against climate change must be sequestering carbon. It was a pleasure last week to see the Morecambe bay net zero peak cluster vision launched, which could decarbonise 40% of our cement and lime industries, securing a gigatonne of carbon under Morecambe bay. Can I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me to discuss the project further?
Andrew Bowie
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend at any time, and I am happy to discuss this and any other matter relating to the subject.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now that the Government have recognised the importance of versatile and productive agricultural land in respect of solar, will they recognise too the threat of a monstrous string of pylons stretching right down the east coast of England? We either care about our green and pleasant land or we do not—for, as Keats understood, truth is beauty and beauty, truth.
Justin Tomlinson
My right hon. Friend will know that we value taking communities with us and working with them. I am having a number of meetings on this very subject to look at new technologies to see what additional options there could be to support local communities as we rapidly upgrade our national grid network.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister, I should say that he will take longer than is usual for a statement, and I totally agree with the extra time. I am just letting the other Front Benchers know that there will be some extra time.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the final report of the infected blood inquiry.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the anguish that the infected blood scandal brought to those impacted by it. I want to reiterate his words and apologise again today. I am sorry. The Prime Minister also spoke, on behalf of the whole House, of our gratitude to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for completing his comprehensive report—seven volumes and 2,500 pages—and of our appreciation of all those who came forward as part of the inquiry.
It was the greatest privilege of my ministerial career to meet over 40 representatives of the infected blood community, in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, Birmingham and Leeds, as we finalised our response to compensation for this appalling tragedy. The whole community’s bravery through immense suffering is what has enabled justice today. I know that many of them will be watching from the Public Gallery. I want to honour their fortitude through their unimaginable pain, as I lay out a more detailed response to Sir Brian’s second interim report on compensation. We will provide the House with a further opportunity to debate the inquiry’s full report after the Whitsun recess. The Government will also respond to each recommendation in full, as quickly as possible, within our comprehensive response to the report.
The Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that the Government will pay comprehensive compensation to those who have been infected and affected as a result of this scandal. I will now set out to the House the scheme that the Government are proposing, and of course, more details of the scheme will be published online today. We are establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—an arm’s length body—to administer the scheme. A shadow body has already been set up, and an interim chief executive officer has been appointed. Today, I am delighted to announce the appointment of Sir Robert Francis at the interim chair of the organisation. The experience and care that Sir Robert will bring to the role will ensure that the scheme is credible and trusted by the community. His support in delivering the scheme will be invaluable.
Those who have been infected or affected as a result of this scandal will receive compensation. To be crystal clear, if you have been directly or indirectly infected by NHS blood, blood products or tissue contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C, or have developed a chronic infection from blood contaminated with hepatitis B, you will be eligible to claim compensation under the scheme, and where an infected person has died but would have been eligible under those criteria, compensation will be paid to their estate. This will include where a person was infected with hepatitis B and died during the acute period of infection.
But, Mr Speaker, Sir Brian could not have been clearer: it is not just the harm caused by the infections that requires compensation. The wrongs suffered by those affected must also be compensated for, so when a person with an eligible infection has been accepted on to the scheme, their affected loved ones will be able to apply for compensation in their own right. That means that partners, parents, siblings, children, friends and family who have acted as carers for those who were infected are all eligible to claim. I am aware that being asked to provide evidence of eligibility will likely be distressing, so I am determined to minimise that distress as much as possible.
I am pleased to confirm today that anyone already registered with one of the existing infected blood support schemes will automatically be considered eligible for compensation. I also give thanks for the dedication and hard work of Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and the other members of the expert group, who were critical in advising on how the Government could faithfully translate Sir Brian’s recommendations for the purposes of the scheme. In line with our previous commitments, we will publish the names of those experts today.
In his report, Sir Brian recommended that compensation be awarded with respect to the following five categories: an injury impact award, acknowledging the physical and mental injury caused by the infection; a social impact award, to address the stigma or social isolation resulting from the infection; an autonomy award, acknowledging how family and private life was disrupted during this time; a care award, to compensate for the past and future care needs of anyone infected; and finally a financial loss award, for past and future financial losses suffered as a result of the infection. The Government accept this recommendation with two small refinements, informed by the work of the expert group and designed for simplicity and speed, two other principles that Sir Brian asserted.
First, the care award will be directly awarded to the person with the infection, or to their estate. Secondly, the financial loss award will be paid either directly to the person with the infection, or—where an infected person has tragically died before the establishment of the scheme—to their estate and to affected persons who were dependent on them. Sadly, many people have links to multiple individuals who were infected, or were both infected themselves and affected by another’s infection. As such, multiple injury awards will be offered to reflect the scale of the loss and suffering. The scheme will be tariff-based, and we will be publishing an explanatory document on gov.uk, including examples of proposed tariffs.
However, this is not the end: over the next few weeks, Sir Robert Francis will seek views from the infected blood community on the proposed scheme before its terms are set in regulations, to make sure the scheme will best serve those who it is intended for. Sir Robert has welcomed the Government’s proposals as positive and meaningful, and he will set out more details on engagement with the community shortly.
The inquiry recommended that the scheme should be flexible in its awards of compensation, providing for either a lump sum or regular payments. We agree, which is why the awards to living infected or affected persons will be offered as either a lump sum or as periodical payments. Where the infected person has died, estate representatives will receive compensation as a single lump sum to distribute to beneficiaries of the estate, as is appropriate. We will also guarantee that any payments made to those eligible will be exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax, as well as disregard them from means-tested benefit assessments. We will also ensure that all claimants are able to appeal against their award both through an internal review process in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and, where needed, with a right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal. Our expectation is that final payments will start before the end of the year, and if you permit, Mr Speaker, I would like to return to the House when the regulations are laid later this year to make a further statement with an update on the delivery of the compensation scheme.
I know from my discussions with the community just how important the existing infected blood support scheme payments are to them. I recognise that many people, sadly, rely on these payments, and they are rightly keen to understand what the Government’s intentions are. I want to provide reassurance to all those out there today that no immediate changes will be made to the support schemes. Payments will continue to be made at the same level until 31 March 2025, and they will not be deducted from any of these compensation awards. From 1 April 2025, any support scheme payments received will be counted towards a beneficiary’s final compensation award. This will ensure parity between support scheme beneficiaries regardless of whether they were the first or the last to have their compensation assessed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. We will ensure that no one—no one—receives less in compensation than they would have received in support payments.
I recognise that each week members of the infected blood community are dying from their infections. There may be people—indeed, there will be people—listening today who are thinking to themselves that they may not live to receive compensation, so I want to address those concerns, too. Today, I am announcing that the Government will be making further interim payments ahead of the establishment of the full scheme. Payments of £210,000 will be made to living infected beneficiaries—those registered with existing infected blood support schemes as well as those who register with a support scheme before the final scheme becomes operational—and to the estates of those who pass away between now and payments being made. I know that time is of the essence, which is why I am also pleased to say that they will be delivered within 90 days, starting in the summer, so that they can reach those who most need it so urgently.
Before I conclude, I would like to turn to the matter of memorialisation. Many of those who were infected by contaminated blood or blood products have since died—died without knowing that their suffering and loss would be fully recognised either in their lifetime or at all. The lives of most of those who have died remain unrecognised. I note Sir Brian’s recommendations on memorialisation across the UK, and the Government will address those recommendations in detail as part of our wider response to this report.
In conclusion, I know that the whole House will want to join me in thanking Sir Brian and the inquiry for the work that they have done, and pay tribute to all those who have been caught up in this terrible tragedy and who have battled for justice for so long. Yesterday was a day of great humility for everyone implicated in this inquiry, and today I can only hope that, with the publication of the inquiry report and with our firm commitment to compensate those touched by this scandal, the infected blood community know that their cries for justice have been heard. I commend this statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Lots of Members want to get in, and all Members will get in. I now come to the shadow Minister.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The infected blood scandal is one the gravest injustices in our history, and a profound moment of shame for the British state. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition apologised on behalf of Labour Governments of the past, and the Prime Minister did the same on behalf of all Governments and the country. I join them today in saying a deep and heartfelt sorry.
The scale of the horror that was uncovered by Sir Brian Langstaff’s report almost defies belief. That is why I pay tribute to the victims of this scandal, who fought so hard for justice. We thank the charities, and the remarkable campaigning work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), as well as the Father of the House, and the journalist Caroline Wheeler, whose work and book, “Death in the Blood”, did so much to drive this issue forward. I also recognise the significance of the decision made by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), in establishing the public inquiry. I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and all his staff for their forensic work. I also thank the Minister for regularly briefing me, and for his work in government ahead of today.
One of the most powerful conclusions in this report is that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and it is that I turn to now. I welcome the further interim payments that the Minister has announced, and I repeat our commitment to work on a cross-party basis, and help to deliver the compensation scheme and get the final money to victims as soon as possible.
I welcome the further details that the Minister has given, including the appointment of the interim chair. Sir Robert Francis is saying already that he is seeking the views of the infected blood community, and that is welcome, but does the Minister agree that continuing to hear that voice of victims is crucial?
I also welcome payments being made under the five heads of loss to the infected and the affected. Will the Minister confirm that estimates of the total cost have now been made, and that there will be no undue delay in those final payments reaching victims? Time is of the essence: one victim dies every four days. Will the Minister set out more detail about how the personal representatives of estates will be handled as part of the scheme? Will he also confirm that plans are in place to trace additional people who might be eligible for compensation? Will he say a little more about when we can expect a progress report on Sir Brian Langstaff’s other 11 recommendations, beyond the establishment of the compensation body? I add my support, and that of all Labour Members, to the consideration of appropriate and fitting memorials across the different parts of the UK and, as Sir Brian Langstaff recommends, for victims who were treated at Treloar’s.
On potential criminal charges, will the Minister ensure that all relevant evidence is made available for consideration by the prosecuting authorities and any other necessary support provided? Sir Brian Langstaff’s findings on institutional defensiveness, and on putting the reputation of people and protecting institutions above public service, follow on from other scandals such as Hillsborough and Horizon. That is why we must deliver a duty of candour and the political leadership that we need to replace that culture of defensiveness with openness and transparency. Sir Brian Langstaff’s report challenges us all to make progress on his recommendations. That is what we must now come together to do. The victims deserve nothing less.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his collegiate tone and for the constructive approach he has taken throughout our conversations and in his response this afternoon. I totally embrace the need to continue the dialogue with victims. That is why I was pleased that Sir Robert Francis agreed to take on that role, having done the study into compensation. We have obviously met a number of times, and I have explained to him what Jonathan Montgomery and the experts panel did. I am pleased that he has got to a point where he is sufficiently satisfied to move forward in this way.
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there is no restriction on the budget, and where we need to pay we will pay. We will minimise delays and address the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff with respect to speed and efficiency, removing as much complexity as possible. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the representatives of different estates and tracing additional claimants. Those will be matters that the interim chief executive and interim chair will look at carefully. I envisage through the month of June an exercise to engage meaningfully with representatives of the communities, to look at some of the assumptions in the work of that expert panel, which will inform the regulations that we are duty bound to bring to the House within three months of the Victims and Prisoners Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Some of the other matters about appropriate memorialisation, criminal charges and duty of candour, on some of which progress is being made in different ways, are probably best left to some of my colleagues at a subsequent point. As I said, I anticipate that we will have an early opportunity to discuss those matters in full, in a debate soon after the Whitsun recess.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will understand that my remarks will be subsidiary to those of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
It is 36 years since I was with the first of my friends who I knew had been infected, and 33 years since that person died. Friendships got fractured, and families were changed forever.
One point that I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will put to his fellow Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care regards whether those who are still infected in some way can have a kind of national health service passport, so that when they go to get medical attention they are not asked the same questions that my constituents were asked every time: “How much have you been drinking? Why is your liver the way it is?” and all the rest. It is important that young clinicians understand that when they see haemophilia or a whole blood infection, they can take for granted a lot of things that do not need to be asked. That humanity needs to be spread.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend has built on the work of our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and perhaps I may say in a cross-party way that Sue Gray deserves respect for when she led civil servants in that, as do her successors in the civil service who are putting things right.
My final point is this: people are not being awarded lottery sums, although in some way they make up for some of the losses and recognise some of the hurt. For some families who may not have been used to having much money around—indeed, most of them are used to having very little money because of the consequences of infection—there may need to be mediation services in case they do not agree. It would be a good idea if Sir Robert, or others, could consider whether such services could be made available, in the same way that other people who have suddenly come into some degree of money can get some kind of help. Families sometimes do not find it easy to decide how money should be shared.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done and for his constructive engagement with me over the past six months, and over many previous years. He made the point about his friend and the stigma that some of the victims have had to endure, which is why injury and social impact are reflected in the heads of loss under the scheme. He also made some observations about how better awareness of some conditions can be taken forward. I will discuss that with ministerial colleagues—several from the Department of Health and Social Care are in their places today.
My hon. Friend mentioned my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), but I am aware that a large number of Paymasters General—including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting alongside me today—have done an enormous amount of work to get us to this point, along with many officials, including James Quinault, who has led the work latterly. I want to acknowledge their contribution; this is not about me.
More broadly, my hon. Friend made some wise observations about the need to ensure that, for the communities who will be given significant sums of money—rightly so, and in line with what they would be entitled to if they went through a legal process—the appropriate framework of support is in place to assist them to receive that money in a way that is not destructive to their lives.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Yesterday was an emotional day for many of us. I am privileged to be at Central Hall with my constituents Cathy Young and her two fantastic daughters, Lisa and Nicola. I join the Minister in paying great tribute to the infected blood community. That community gave Sir Brian Langstaff a standing ovation yesterday—a sight that will never leave me. May I echo the Public Gallery’s reaction to the appointment of Sir Robert Francis? It is an excellent appointment. Will the Minister confirm that Sir Robert Francis will be able to meet the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood as well as others in the House?
With regard to the composition of the board of the compensation authority, will the Minister guarantee—I have already raised this with him—that it will include representatives of the infected and affected, and that they will have what we believe is their rightful representation on the board? I welcome his comments in relation to hepatitis B. That has always been one of the issues of contention, and some people with hepatitis B have been missing out on the existing schemes. Will he look to find a way so that those with hepatitis B can access the existing schemes? I know that the Scottish Infected Blood Forum has asked him that question.
On interim payments, the Minister mentioned the living. Will he clarify whether interim payments will be made to the estates of those who have sadly passed away? Some people will raise eyebrows about the fact that the interim compensation is less than that for those in the Post Office scheme. Will he give some explanation as to how the £210,000 figure came about?
I echo the comments of the shadow Minister on looking at criminal charges and a Hillsborough law, and I very much welcome his comments on memorial. Does the Minister agree that there are two other lessons: first, Members of this House, regardless of political persuasion, can get together to deliver justice; and secondly, for the general public the key lesson, as shown by those in the infected blood community, is never, ever to give up fighting injustice?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement and for the points he has made today. I was there yesterday for the two hours of Sir Brian Langstaff’s presentation of his report, which was a moving moment for all of those who have suffered and waited for so long.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the appointment of Sir Robert Francis, which seemed to be welcomed in the Gallery. I recognise that what is absolutely critical for the scheme to be successful is full engagement with the communities and that the explanation of how the scheme has been constructed and any concerns about the wider support that is needed are interrogated fully before the regulations come back to the House. Throughout, the scheme has been about reconciling speed and efficiency with consultation, which is why it has been done in such a way over the past few months.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about hepatitis B and access to schemes. I will be happy to correspond with him separately on that—obviously, there are lots of technical issues. He asked about the £210,000, which he can see is an irregular amount. That is because I was trying to get the maximum amount that could be universally paid, as quickly as I could, to those who are infected and alive without any risk of paying the wrong amount, and that is the amount that I was advised. What is really important is that we get to the examination of entitlements and what that balancing payment is, and get that payment out as quickly as possible. This is not a stalling tactic; it is about trying to reconcile the competing priorities of responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money and getting payments made as quickly as possible for the most vulnerable in our community.
With regard to memorialisation, on these matters there will need to be wide engagement and I do not want to make binding commitments today. I have said what I have said, and I or another Minister will return to that in due course.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what he said and how he said it. I know that he, the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Chancellor, who is sitting next to him, will make this right. Clearly, the majority of Sir Brian’s recommendations are for the health and social care sector, and the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, will play its part, working with the Health Secretary—I see her in her place—and NHS England to ensure that all the recommendations are implemented, unlike with some previous accepted patient safety recommendations. May I ask the Minister about the five loss categories? They make every sense, and I note his two small refinements, but will the financial loss award reflect the reality that many infected blood victims, to give just one example, cannot access life insurance?
John Glen
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments. I also thank the Chancellor for his unwavering commitment to resolving this in a timely way, both when I was Chief Secretary and now in this role.
With respect to the five loss categories, my hon. Friend makes a legitimate point about a specific additional burden that is a consequence of these conditions. That matter will no doubt be raised by some in the communities. The structure of the scheme is based around: injuries, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss. Clearly, social impact and autonomy capture a range of unspecific things—a basket of goods, if you like—that people will not have been able to procure at the same cost. I cannot give him a specific answer on that, but Jonathan Montgomery and his team of experts have done everything they can to look at the law, consider what the entitlement would be in different circumstances and give their best assessment, and those sorts of conversations will happen with the communities in the coming weeks.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement today. Reflecting on the fact that he has talked about those infected and affected being fully engaged, I gently remind him of the maxim “No decision about us without us”, and of the lack of transparency so far in the expert panel. It is only today that we will learn the names of the people who have been advising the Government.
May I also welcome the appointment of Sir Robert Francis as interim chair of the infected blood body? It is worth reflecting on what Sir Brian put in his report yesterday about the Government’s failure to respond to Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework document, which the Leader of the House commissioned when she was Paymaster General, and which the Government promised several times to respond to. That was never published.
Because we have also not had a proper written response to the second interim report from Sir Brian last April, will the Minister set out whether all 18 recommendations are being accepted by the Government? If not, why not? Will he confirm how the Government will ensure that the compensation authority is accountable directly to Parliament, as recommended by the infected blood inquiry?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Lady for her observations and for her ongoing engagement since my appointment. I take seriously her point about having no decisions without full engagement. I made a decision, in order to get to this point where we would, in principle, accept the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff and move forward with the independent expert panel. As I have said to her previously, I was always prepared to reveal the names of those individuals, but I did not want them to be distracted while they did urgent work to make progress quickly. Their names will be available shortly—today.
Sir Robert Francis and I had a number of conversations about the interaction between Government and the expert group, and the logic that I used to get to the heads of loss and the scheme today. I am delighted that he is prepared to facilitate engagement with the communities.
I have also been mindful of the principle of the Government managing public money while also recognising Sir Brian’s imperative to set up a body that is at arm’s length from Government, in order to generate some trust with a very vulnerable community. Reconciling those two has not been straightforward. The right hon. Lady asked about the accountability of the arm’s length body. These matters will need to be discussed further with respect to the regulations that we must lay before the House.
A number of my predecessors have done a lot of work on this issue. I am pleased that we have made significant progress, but there is an intense amount of work to be done to deliver this over the next three months. I look forward to working constructively with her, as Sir Robert Francis does, to ensure that we get this to the right place as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
We have heard descriptions of institutional defensiveness today, but we should be clear about what we are talking about: this was a grubby secret kept by the Department of Health. The people who suffered as a consequence were treated as an inconvenience to be managed. It flies in the face of what we are required to do in this House: hold Ministers accountable for what happens in their Departments. We need to learn from this, to improve how we behave and to hold the Executive to account in future. If we do not, this incident will shame us all—not just those directly responsible. We need to properly establish a duty of candour for civil servants in the advice they give to Ministers, and a requirement that Ministers must satisfy themselves that they are giving appropriate challenge and consideration to the advice they receive, so that everyone involved in delivering services in future can be held directly responsible, and this place does not continue to be a charade.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I agree with her instinctive reaction to what Sir Brian said about the duty of candour. It will be for the Government more widely to determine how we respond to that in a formal and coherent way. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was in a previous role, he moved quite a lot of things forward in the Department of Health, as the hon. Lady knows. When someone spends that amount of time, with that depth of evaluation, and gives a number of insights and recommendations, it is important that the Government look at them very carefully. Sir Brian makes wise observations about how we do government in this country, which we must listen to, heed and apply.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I, too, welcome today’s statement, which has been a long time coming. This is a poignant day for many of my constituents, their families and friends. Reassurance has been called for by organisations such as Haemophilia Scotland that the recommendations will be adhered to, as perhaps they have not been in the past. Does the Minister agree that having the involvement of various groups of infected and affected people will help ensure that happens?
John Glen
I agree. When I went to Edinburgh I was keen to meet a representative group of Scottish infected blood campaign organisations. I had a very candid conversation with them, in which I set out where we were as a Government and what we were planning to do on this day at a high level. Those conversations need to continue. As I said, the immediate priority is under Sir Robert Francis’s guidance. That engagement will continue throughout June, so that the regulations are informed by the wisdom, experience and views of those we are seeking to support.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Let me start by commending my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), for her courage, determination and persistence in relentlessly pursuing this matter over the years. I wholeheartedly support her call for the rapid payment of compensation before any more sufferers die, and I know the Minister has that in mind.
The Prime Minister said that a travesty like this should never be allowed to happen again. Like the PACAC Chair, I think that rests on the duty of candour that Sir Brain Langstaff recommended. That means a legally enforceable duty of candour for the entire public service, not just some promise. As it turns out, the Minister has in front of him the opportunity to do that. On Report today in the Lords is the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which includes a clause that imposes a duty of candour in a very limited way. Can my right hon. Friend look at that clause and expand it to cover the whole public sector under all circumstances?
John Glen
I defer to my right hon. Friend’s considerable experience and wisdom on many matters. I recognise his points, but to move on this matter in that way in this short timeframe would not be the right step. However, it would be right for us to urgently engage with him, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and others to ensure that the Government come up with the right complete response, to deal with a sensible point that Sir Brian made.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituents whose lives were changed for ever and the many campaigners affected by this scandal, who have fought for so many years for truth and justice. From Hillsborough to the Post Office, the infected blood scandal and many more, we have watched the state and institutions cover up wrongdoing and blame the innocent, with no accountability. How long do we have to wait for those in this place to finally act and rebalance the scales of justice, and to deliver a full Hillsborough law? Yesterday’s events show how necessary that law is to begin to end the culture of cover-ups that is shamefully hardwired into our institutions.
John Glen
I very much respect the hon. Gentleman’s points about Hillsborough. I am not able to answer his question on that, as my remarks are about the compensation scheme, but a number of points have been made about the incidence of public inquiries on a range of issues, and what that says about our state and its failure in different ways. As he said, considerable effort was required of individuals—which it should never have been—to apprehend the state for what has happened. These are wider matters that we will need to come to terms with, but I do not think I can do justice to his remarks today.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I appreciate that today’s statement is about compensation, but there was no opportunity yesterday nor much today to ask specifically about Lord Mayor Treloar College in Hampshire. My constituent Mike Webster sent his son Gary, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), to Treloar back in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He wrote to me last month to tell me how distraught he was that the school is now trying to paint itself as a victim, when we know that it was in receipt of funds to conduct experiments on children. Will my right hon. Friend give me some assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Government are considering very carefully how the Helsinki declaration may have been breached, and some guidance about what future steps may be taken?
John Glen
My right hon. Friend very eloquently makes a very important point. In the course of my engagement, I met a number of former pupils from Treloar. I believe that in Sir Robert’s report, one full volume pertains to what happened there. So many individuals underwent medical treatment that was not envisaged by their parents and where consent appears not to have been secured. This is a massive aspect of the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. The Government will need to examine it very carefully, including the implications for who is culpable and how we should most appropriately respond to avoid anything like that happening again. I hope that what I have said today with respect to compensation will give some modest measure of comfort to those I met and those like them who are not here today.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
There are not words enough to pay tribute to all the campaigners, infected and affected, including my constituent Lin, who lost Bill, and the Smiths. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and journalists such as Caroline Wheeler. The Smiths lost Colin, aged just seven years old, to AIDS, having been given infected blood from an Arkansas prison at 10 months old. We now know from the inquiry that the risks of giving that blood were known. Lin and the Smiths want “sorry” to turn into something today, for those who die every week. On their behalf, I say to the Minister: make sure we have a proper timeline and that we stick to it; implement the recommendations as fast as possible; put the victims at the heart of decision making; and no more delays. This group of people have waited far too long and have been through far too much already. Finally, the Smiths want their son to have his name back, although they have always made sure that we have never forgotten it. So can I say it today? Colin John Smith.
John Glen
The hon. Lady makes a moving tribute to her constituents. I can assure her that the Government have heard the pleas that have been made. We have set out today a clear timetable on the journey to the regulations. I will, with Mr Speaker’s permission, update the House in early autumn on where we have got to and the timeline for further detail, subject to the advice of the interim CEO and the interim chair. She makes a point about stigma, which is a massive part of this for so many people I met and for her constituents, including the Smith family. We recognise that as part of the scheme, but the memorialisation process must also recognise in particular those who were so badly stigmatised in the ’80s and ’90s.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Minister talks about stigma. When I met some of the affected community in Peterborough, I heard about the discrimination they faced and about their lack of trust in public institutions. This all leaves a very long legacy. With that in mind, how confident is he that, despite that long legacy, the scheme will capture and benefit everyone affected or infected? How confident is he that everyone who should be compensated will come forward?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am confident that the scheme will work, and that it will work as quickly as it possibly can. I mentioned today the interim payments of £210,000 to the infected who are alive. The speed with which we process the applications of those affected and infected is very much on my mind as we set up the shadow arm’s length body. I will continue to work with my officials to do everything we can to move the timeline from the right to the left, conscious of how long people have waited.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First of all, I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved so quickly. The sorrow expressed yesterday had to be translated into action. The fact that the authority has been set up, a chairman who will have the confidence of the victims has been put in place, and the payments—at least interim payments—will be made quickly is good. But for people like my constituent Trevor Marsden, who was used as an experiment by people who described children as “cheaper than chimps” and more readily available, justice will be given only when the elite in the civil service and the professionals who cynically abused their position—devised experiments, denied they were happening, tried to destroy the evidence and defended their actions—know they will face criminal charges. That is what they are. Will the Government make sure that all the evidence is made available, so they can be brought to justice?
John Glen
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful representation on behalf of Trevor Marsden and more generally with respect to some of the conclusions Sir Brian made in his remarks. What happened with respect to experimentation was truly shameful. As he will be aware, I am speaking today to the issue of compensation, but it is an urgent matter to isolate who knew what and when, take that from the report and establish what courses of action, across the range of issues raised here in the House today, are the most appropriate to deal with all of those things.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has set out, particularly the efforts that he and his predecessors have made to remove friction from the process of getting the victims of this unforgivable episode the compensation they clearly deserve. But he will recognise that as the system beds down and begins to operate, there is always the risk of that friction creeping back in. Can he make sure that he and his ministerial colleagues keep their eyes on the process and work with Sir Robert Francis to make sure it continues to be without friction, so that people continue to be able to easily access the compensation they need?
John Glen
Absolutely. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very wise point. The need to swiftly expedite payments in full to as many qualifying people as possible is the imperative that has guided me to this point, and will be the imperative that Sir Robert will take forward in his conversations. We must not introduce unnecessary complexity to establish people’s qualification to receive a payment, when that is unnecessary. There is a tension, but we must resolve it to get the payments out. That is why the arm’s length body will need to prioritise in particular the groups who are infected, alive and suffering the most, many of whom I met recently.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the Minister understand that as well as a duty of candour, we really need, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has consistently put before this House, a public advocate to make certain that victims in future scandals have somebody to look after them and take them through processes? That would stop this happening ever again. Will he say something about when he expects all the payments to have been made? He talked about an interim scheme which goes on to the end of this financial year, but also about full payments being made going further forward. When is his deadline for getting this done?
John Glen
The hon. Lady talks about a public advocate. I am not in a position to respond to that today, but it is clearly one option that is available and I think will be part of the wider response to the report. To be clear, the interim payments of £210,000 to the infected alive which I announced today will be paid within 90 days, starting in the summer. The full payments will begin by the end of the year. I am constrained somewhat because we are setting up an arm’s length body. There is an interim chief executive and I think there will be 20 people employed in that organisation by the end of next week. I cannot account for the processes and the way it will be established, and therefore how quickly, but everything I have said to David Foley, the interim chief executive, is designed to impress on him the need for speed to expedite as many of these claims as quickly as possible in full.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his statement. I know from our conversations how seriously he takes his moral duty on this issue. However, I also know from the work done at the Cabinet Office in the summer of 2022 in getting the first interim payments out that one of the most fraught areas of consideration will be wider eligibility, and that is not just a function of complexity but a function of capacity. The Minister mentioned that the arm's length body would have 20 employees in the next couple of weeks, but can he reassure the House that, if Sir Robert Francis comes back in a few months and says, “In order to make quick decisions, I need more capacity and therefore more people”, there will be no quibbling on adequate resource in that organisation to fulfil the Minister’s rightly identified priority of getting the money out as quickly as possible to as many people as possible?
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he did when he was in office to bring forward interim payments and to make progress. As for the business case for the arm's length body and the plans for the number of employees needed, I expect Sir Robert and the interim chief executive to be iteratively working up plans to expedite this as quickly as possible, and to assert what resources they need for it to be delivered as quickly as possible. I will do everything I can to prioritise swift delivery in the decisions that I make.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The timeline in Sir Brian’s report highlights the litany of failures, delays and cover-ups over decades which resulted in the exposure of even more patients to hepatitis C and HIV. While several countries accepted liability and set up compensation schemes in the mid-1990s, UK victims have had to spend another 30 years of their lives not just dealing with ill health but fighting for justice. I welcome the vast majority of what the Minister has announced today, and I am sure that everyone in the House does as well, but the members of the infected blood community who are here today will have been greatly concerned to hear his comments that implied a threat to the ongoing support payments. Does he accept that it is not just a matter of saying that the infected blood community will be involved in the compensation scheme? Will their wishes be listened to?
John Glen
They will, absolutely. When I was in Edinburgh I had long conversations about the need to understand the integration of the existing infected blood support schemes, which present in a different way and offer meaningful psychological and other support services to the communities in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are talking about two parts of the heads of loss—about past and future care costs, and loss of income past and future. We are consolidating those into a lump sum, but I have made an absolute commitment that no one will be worse off. There are a couple of categories in which there is a potential risk of that, but we will make sure that no one will be worse off. However, the sensitivity in the delivery of this scheme, in terms with which the various communities across the United Kingdom will be comfortable, is at the top of my mind, and will be instrumental in determining the form of the regulations that will guide this into law in the next few months
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and, indeed, for the tone that the Government have taken in respect of this most grave scandal. It is striking, is it not, that the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, has said that his job is not yet done, that he will only regard his terms of reference as fulfilled when the Government respond, within 12 months, to his recommendations, and, importantly, that he will only regard his job as done if he feels that there is nothing more he can do to prevent delay? Given that the Government have to respond to the second interim report and, now, to this final report, can my right hon. Friend assure me and the House, and indeed the wider public, that he and the Government will do everything they can to ensure that Sir Brian’s role is fulfilled as swiftly as possible?
John Glen
I can certainly reassure my right hon. and learned Friend of that. Today’s announcements about compensation, and the documents that will flow through, will constitute substantive responses to meet the expectations of many in the communities, and I will consider the formalisation of those responses very carefully to bring clarity to the matter.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Could I put on record the thanks of, I think, all of us not only to the campaigners, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)? As someone who campaigned for many years on postmasters, I know how lonely it is at times when you are taking on the state and no one believes you.
I welcome the Paymaster General’s announcement of a compensation scheme based on tariffs, but can I tell him, from my experience as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, that the big work starts now in terms of agreeing the levels of those tariffs? Will the Government pay individual claimants’ legal bills, because they will need some legal advice on that? Could I also echo what the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), said? A lot of money is going to be paid out to people. We will get unscrupulous individuals trying to prey on people. Can I suggest that we ensure that they get financial advice and support when those payments are made?
John Glen
Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has made some wise points, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I accept much of what he has said about the concern surrounding tariffs, but these tariffs have not been set up with financial constraints; they have been set up with the input of a range of experts to reach a judgment on what would be appropriate versus what would be a legal entitlement. The assumptions behind those bandings—severity bandings, for instance—now need to be explained and scrutinised, and that is what is going to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman made a very reasonable point about claims by unscrupulous people; the question here is how we can put safeguards in place while expediting the claims of those who have qualified. He also made a reasonable point about the professional support of lawyers and financial advisers. That, too, is at the top of my mind as I learn from some of the other scandals with which I became familiar in my role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I will take those to heart in future.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Let me begin by paying tribute to my constituent Paul Bloor for his campaign. Paul started at Treloar College in 1974, and was infected with hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. I regret that I personally had not grasped the full horrendousness of what has gone on, and I thank Sir Brian for ensuring that we do all now understand. Paul welcomes the compensation, but he asked me to raise with the Minister the issue of accountability. What work is being done to ensure that we can now pursue any avenue towards personal accountability for those who deserve to have their conduct looked at?
John Glen
I completely understand why Paul would want that point to be raised. Those matters go beyond my brief when it comes to compensation, but I think the whole House will recognise that this matter is urgent and that Ministers in other Departments will need to address it properly and in full. I hope that the debate after Whitsun will give us an opportunity to open up all these matters as a House, and that the Government can then respond appropriately as quickly as possible.
Some of the things that happened were completely against the values of the institutions that those individuals were part of. We need to examine this fully and come to terms with it, and make sure that it can never happen again.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Can we accept that institutional defensiveness has not gone away, and will only go away when we in this House act to make it go away? For the past few years I have been working with constituents who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. They lost millions of pounds. They were failed repeatedly by, first, the Financial Services Authority and then the Financial Conduct Authority. They have been left out of pocket to the tune of nearly £2 million in legal fees, in which the FCA has no apparent interest. Will the Minister meet me, along with other Members whose constituents have been affected and some of the victims themselves, to see what can be done to deliver for them the good intentions that he has expressed today?
John Glen
I am very sorry to hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I know from my prior experience that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), is best placed to address any issue related to the FCA. I understand the problems of jurisdiction of the FCA, particularly when it comes to unregulated activities, but I do not think I can help the right hon. Gentleman, and, with respect, I think he should address that question to my colleague in the Treasury.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done a diligent job, which is reflective of his attitude towards the overall need and this gravest of situations. However, it all ought to have been done earlier, and I hold in mind my former constituent Annie Walker, who died in 2016. I wish she had been able to see this before she passed away, because she told me that she was tired of having to keep campaigning.
I also have in mind a current constituent, whom I will not name and with whom I work regularly on this issue. He has asked me to point out that the support schemes are, as per the Minister’s statement, due to change. He and I would be very grateful for as much clarity as possible on those schemes, which will be needed by many of the people involved.
Finally, may I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to bring forward the regulations as soon as possible? If I understand it correctly, Sir Robert Francis may take a number of weeks. He has mentioned the month of June, and we have heard the figure of five weeks, so can I take it that we may see the regulations in July, which would allow, I hope, all Members—not just a selected Committee—of this House to do their job in scrutinising those regulations and get the job done as fast as possible?
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions, and for her personal engagement with me over recent weeks. The fact that she refers to an unnamed constituent provokes me to acknowledge that so many people have been so traumatised by their experiences and the stigma associated with their conditions that they have not been able to be as open as they would like.
With respect to the timeframe, the Government submitted to a three-month obligation to bring those regulations forward from Royal Assent of the Bill, which will happen, I think, in June or July. Of course, there will be time where we have to lay them before the House. I want to make sure that we do that in the most timely way possible. The purposeful intent, with the engagement under Sir Robert’s leadership, is to make sure that that is meaningful but also addresses the imperative around time.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The very welcome appointment of Sir Robert Francis, who did such an excellent job in chairing the inquiry into the scandal in mid-Staffordshire, is a reminder that we are very good at inquiries in this country, but we are terrible at implementing their recommendations. I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister, and it is just as applicable to those on my own Front Bench. We might be able to reduce the chances of this kind of thing happening again by asking every permanent secretary in Whitehall how many recommendations from previous inquiries are still on the books and have not been implemented. Let us have the list, and let us have a good reason—a very good reason—why they have not been implemented.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I echo his tribute to Sir Robert Francis. One of the reasons I was keen to secure his ongoing work is that he did excellent work with the study into compensation, which has obviously been important in moving us forward to this point. The challenge to permanent secretaries on recommendations that have not been dealt with is very reasonable. I am not quite sure how best I can take that forward, but I will seek advice and let the right hon. Gentleman know how we are getting on with it at the next opportunity.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Yesterday, I spoke to an emotional constituent, Paul Jewels from Braunton, who wanted to express to Sir Brian his gratitude that the truth has come out. He contracted hepatitis C following a blood transfusion during chemotherapy in 1983, and he now trains therapy dogs to give hope and support to others. Can my right hon. Friend give him hope that compensation will be rapid and simple to enable him and others to finally reach closure?
John Glen
Yes, I certainly can. That has been driving the Government over recent months. As we make progress, I am sure that we will give more detail on exactly how and when the work of the arm’s length body will play out in the coming months, the remainder of this year and beyond.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is, this will all happen again unless we change the way we do our parliamentary politics, because Parliament failed, as did the whole of British politics. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. Frankly, I think of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) as a Companion of Honour with a capital C and a capital H.
The truth is, Parliament was misled repeatedly over decades. In all those decades, there was not a single Select Committee report into infected blood. We did not do our job properly, so is it not time that we do have change in the way we do our parliamentary and Government politics in this country, perhaps with a bit more power in Parliament, rather than always in Government? Would it not be a good idea if it was always the people first, not the Government first; and the people first, not the institution or the Department first; and the people first, not the party first? Does not that require placing a legally enforceable duty of candour not just on Ministers through the ministerial code, which I think should be in statute, but on all our civil servants?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful assessment, which chimes with what I thought yesterday when I heard Sir Brian speak to the 1,200 people in Methodist Central Hall. What was striking was the range of institutional failure. Yes, it involved the Government and politicians, but it also involved civil servants, doctors and many people in positions of authority. The hon. Gentleman makes a clear suggestion for rebalancing across different institutions, and I recognise the specificity of Sir Brian’s challenge and recommendations. As I said earlier, the Government will need to respond powerfully to that, and we will, in due course.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement and my right hon. Friend’s setting out the five heads of harm, and I also welcome Sir Robert Francis as the interim head of the new authority. It has taken a long time to get here, and one of the biggest harms has been the delay in seeing this day. A lot of people will be feeling that really acutely. We need to avoid this happening again, and that is partly about addressing the cover-up culture in so many of our organisations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a change in our legislation to ensure that, right across the public sector and our society, we have a desire for openness and transparency, and get rid of the cover-up culture once and for all?
John Glen
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I agree with her assessment. We need to come to terms with the fact that there are flaws in the way we operate. They have been powerfully and vividly depicted in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, and the Government must respond in a suitably comprehensive way.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I want to recognise the valuable and incredible work of many of the campaign groups, not least the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, chaired by my constituent, Joyce Donnelly, whose husband Tom was infected and passed away from hepatitis C. Joyce was in the Gallery yesterday and earlier today, and she and others have acted as convenors and advocates for the wider community at great personal cost; there is not just the financial cost, but the time and effort put in by those in those roles. Will that effort and cost be taken into account in the calculation of compensation, or is there other ongoing support that the Government can provide to the campaign and advocacy groups? Joyce described her forum as “stony broke”.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful representation on behalf of Joyce Donnelly, who I believe I have met. The purpose of today’s announcement is to bring an end to the need for campaigning as quickly as possible, and to provide comprehensive compensation to all those who qualify as quickly as possible. However, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) said, we need to ensure that the different communities are comfortable with what is being proposed, and are familiar with the details of how tariffs have been calculated and how they will work. Rather than my prescribing, as a Government Minister, what should happen, I am trying to facilitate the process by giving someone whom the communities clearly respect the opportunity to lead the engagement, urgently, that will inform the regulations that underpin the new body.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement on ensuring that compensation is paid quickly. I pay real tribute to all the campaigners who have fought day and night to get where we are today, including the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). It was a pleasure to support her amendment on this important matter to move the situation to where it is today. In an email from my constituent Colin Midgeley in 2015, he said:
“How many more of us will have to go to the grave before a full and final settlement is achieved?”
Sadly, his father passed away in 2018. He then said:
“My dad had to jump through hoops”
to get help; people came to assess him regularly. That cannot be right. The Minister said that the assessment will be done as quickly and as widely as possible. May I ask that the test for qualification be as wide as possible, and that things be done as quickly as possible, so that people get the justice they need?
John Glen
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for. It was clear in the conversations that I have had that speed is of the essence. I know that colleagues from all parts of the House have had many conversations that have informed the representations made in this place. There have been a number of ad hoc schemes over the years. Various Governments—to be fair, of all parties—have amended and sought to upgrade those schemes, but this compensation scheme is qualitatively very different. It is an admission of culpability and responsibility by the state, and it marks that responsibility. We need alignment of the different schemes on getting the journey of assessment done as quickly as possible. That is what we will do.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I represent five individuals or families infected or affected by the NHS infected blood scandal. One constituent was infected with hepatitis C as a child through contaminated blood products used at Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, but he was forced to use all his stage 2 payment of £50,000 to pay for the treatment Harvoni when he developed cirrhosis of the liver. He should not have had to do that, and I hope that there will be redress for that. Another constituent, a single mother, died aged 47 after being infected with HIV after a routine blood transfusion. She had to keep her condition secret, due to the stigma and ignorance that existed at the time. As she was a single mother, her family have never had any compensation. On their behalf, can I ask the Paymaster General to clarify what sum has been allocated for compensation? What is the size of the package? Will it be open-ended, because we know that people are still developing conditions? He confirms that new interim compensation payments will be made within 90 days, but he seems unable to say what the timeline for full compensation payments will be. I underline the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) about the need to ensure that the compensation authority is accountable to Parliament. We must have that. Finally, I commend my right hon. Friend on all her work on this campaign.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her points, which I will address. The first that she makes is that everyone who has been impacted by this scandal is an individual and has had a different pathway, in terms of vulnerability, financial obligations and difficulty accessing the schemes. That is why it is important that I reinforce the fact that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will have an appeal mechanism, and people will have the right to go to tribunal if they believe that the tariff-based system does not reflect the circumstances that individuals may have experienced. There is no restraint on people using the legal system as well, if that is what they wish to do.
I did say that the interim payments of £210,000 would be paid within 90 days, starting this summer. I also said that the full payments will start by the end of this year; I confirm that is the calendar year, to remove any ambiguity. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been clear that we will pay whatever it costs. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what that number is, because we have not yet finalised the severity bandings and verified the work on the tariffs. That is the meaningful engagement we are having with the communities, supervised by Sir Robert Francis. As for the numbers affected, there is obviously a wide range. We are talking about the number who qualify by virtue of the qualification of the infected person. Exact numbers do not exist. I set out who can access the scheme; the principal is that the scheme is accessible to them, and the Government will pay whatever it costs to meet those obligations.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend about paying whatever it costs. It is essential that we be prepared to do that. The Government accepted moral culpability some time ago, and have now accepted financial liability. Can he assure all those constituents for whom justice delayed has been justice denied that he will move as swiftly as possible to deliver for them? Will he bear in mind the lessons of the Northern Ireland victims compensation scheme, which we were able to get through this House in a single day, when there was the political will? Will he continue to engage with, listen to and support Robert Francis in his engagement with the infected and affected, to ensure that the scheme delivers for everybody?
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes wise and sensible points, built on a lot of experience of Government and as a constituency MP. I endorse all that he has asked. There will be a “Dear colleague” letter going out to all MPs, and a “Dear stakeholder” letter, as well as a number of other documents giving details of the schemes I have mentioned today. There will be an attempt to move things forward as quickly as we can, using cross-party consensus on what we are trying to achieve.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Christopher Thomas of Pen Llyn was one of the first patients with haemophilia to be treated by Professor Arthur Bloom of Cardiff. Christopher died in 1990 aged 46. His wife Judith described the family’s feeling that the haematologist was a friend, because they often visited him in hospital for treatment, yet Professor Bloom is mentioned repeatedly in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report as somebody who “disastrously…over-influenced” the Department of Health and Social Security in the ’70s and ’80s. The Minister has mentioned a range of institutional failures. Surely he must agree that today we should hear more details of how legislation relating to duty of candour will be brought forward. If he cannot give us details today—I appreciate that it is not his Department that we are talking about—can he let us know when he will?
John Glen
The right hon. Lady makes a sensible point. I, too, was struck by the reference to Professor Bloom and the role he played in different ways over the years. Doing justice to the report’s 2,500 pages and seven volumes, and coming up with a serious response, will take a bit of time. I recognise the Government’s collective determination to address this matter as quickly as possible in the right way, having listened to the will of this House. The first opportunity to do that will be a debate sometime after Whitsun, which I intend to open—someone from the Department of Health and Social Care will wind up—so that we can begin to outline, in policy terms, how these things can be properly addressed.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and thorough statement, which is so clearly informed by his extensive discussions with the community. I have spoken to him many times about my constituent Sally-Anne and her family, and how this devastating scandal has affected them. I hope that much of what the Minister has said today about compensation will provide Sally-Anne and others with comfort, but we all know that with the best will in the world, and even with the most planning, there will be difficulties in implementing such a massive, complex compensation scheme.
When the Minister said that compensation would not impact means-tested benefits, I felt a sense of relief, but we also know that there will be difficulties when Departments and computer systems have to speak to each other. Can I push the Minister to confirm that the community’s voices will continue to be heard by the arm’s length body, and that we will be able to adapt and change the scheme where necessary to ensure that it works on the ground, because I know that he has worked so hard for that to happen?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and for her constructive point around how the arm’s length body needs to evolve and fit the communities’ expectations. I am absolutely committed to that. She mentioned her constituent, Sally-Anne. Every individual is a priority to me as the Minister, and we want to deliver this as efficiently as we possibly can. She talked about benefits disregards, and I have also mentioned tax disregards. The systems need to recognise what we are doing with these payments to individuals. We have tried to address everything we can think of to make this flow as quickly as possible, and I hope that that will be the case. My hon. Friend is welcome to speak to me again if there are other issues she wants to raise.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We are indebted to Sir Brian Langstaff for the comprehensive work that he has undertaken. However, it leaves many questions about the transparency and accountability of Government—to this place and to Committees but also to the public. Can we ensure that those infected and affected are involved in co-producing the outcomes of the recommendations? Can we also ensure that the separate Departments are held to account, not least the Department of Health and Social Care, given that so many of the recommendations will fall on that Department, and that the Secretary of State for that Department is directly accountable, in this new spirit of transparency to this House and beyond?
John Glen
Of course, many of these events happened over a very wide timespan going back 40 or 50 years, but the issue is what we can do going forward. The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point about involving the infected and affected communities in this process. One of the things that I have mentioned is the arm’s length body having sufficient distance from Government to give confidence to the community. We need to get that right, and we need to ensure that the appropriate governance is in place so that the representatives of those communities can have meaningful influence in how they engage, and on the wider issues that she mentioned.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I really welcome this detailed and thorough statement, and I welcome it on behalf of two of the victims in particular. The first is an unnamed constituent who came to my first-ever advice surgery back in 2010 at Huddersfield town hall. He told me how, during a blood transfusion, he had been infected with HIV, hepatitis C and CJD. The second victim is Mel McKay, who is not a constituent but lives on the east coast of Yorkshire. We have become friends over many years while campaigning on this issue. As well as delivering the compensation rapidly, can the Minister also confirm that there will be no time limits at all on when the victims start applying and completing their applications for compensation?
John Glen
We will be having a review after three years to look at what the lifespan of the arm’s length body should be. I acknowledge the challenge for people with multiple conditions, and that is why I mentioned multiple awards in my statement. That was one of the issues that the independent expert panel grappled with. We want to make this accessible to everyone who is entitled, and I do not want to have unnecessary artificial cut-off points, but we also need to ensure that we have an organisation that is fit for purpose to deliver this quickly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My constituents, Della Ryness and Ruth Spellman, have been active in coming to Parliament and talking about the distress experienced by their families for many, many years. Will the Minister and the shadow Ministers pay tribute to their work? Also, does the Minister envisage any criminal convictions or manslaughter charges for individuals who might have really done the wrong thing?
John Glen
I am very happy to pay tribute to the work of Della and Ruth. Many of these individuals have been campaigning for 20, 30 or 40 years, and I pay tribute to all of them today. With respect to criminal charges, I am not in a position to make a comment today, but work will be done to examine the report fully and make an assessment of that at a future point.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I welcome the Paymaster General’s statement today. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Sir Brian and pay tribute to the campaigners who never gave up. I pay tribute to one campaigner in particular in my own constituency, whom I will not name but she will know that I am speaking of her. She lost her mother and can never be compensated for that, but she also gave up her job and her income. She does not regret that for a moment, but it has left her financially fragile in these later years, to the point that I have advocated with her mortgage lender for a stay of execution—breathing space—ahead of any potential compensation. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot comment on individual cases, but can he restate that, as a child of a victim, she has been affected? I believe that she qualifies on multiple measures, but can he restate that today, for the lender, for her confidence and for my satisfaction? I also add my voice to those saying that there is a dire need for swift action. Time is precious.
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her sensitive portrayal of the individual circumstances of her constituent. The financial vulnerability that impacts so many of the affected because of the impact on the infected is the reason that we are bringing forward the scheme in this way. I am happy to confirm that the affected individual will be able to claim in their own right, informed by the qualification of the infected individual and the estate of the infected individual. Again, I recognise that a tariff-based system will inevitably have limitations, and that is why, beyond getting the parameters absolutely right in terms of the severity bandings, care costs and so on, there must also be an appeal mechanism and a mechanism to challenge, such that we can ensure that everyone receives justice in an individual way.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year, on 18 January, I raised the case of my constituent, Nigel Winborne, a victim of infected blood. As a result, Nigel developed various health issues, including renal failure and liver cirrhosis. I said that Nigel wanted a
“faster resolution to the infected blood scandal compensation before it is too late for myself and others to see full and final resolution”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 1016.]
Sadly, Nigel was too ill to contact me again, but his sister mentioned that she did not want him to be the latest statistic in this horrible affair. Nigel passed away on 9 March. He was just 63 years old. I spoke to his partner earlier this morning, and he is absolutely devastated. They had lived together for over 20 years and he dedicated his life, giving up his career, to be Nigel’s full-time carer. That 90 days will seem like 90 years for them, so on his behalf, I ask the Minister: can this timeline be expedited as soon as possible?
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to Nigel and his life, and I am very sorry to his family for the loss. I recognise the frustration of even one day’s delay. I have done everything I can to move these payments forward as quickly as I possibly can, recognising all the different dependencies. If I could write the cheques myself personally, I would, but I cannot. I will continue to do all that I can. I said that these payments would begin in the summer, and I want them to happen as soon as possible. The 90 days is not a deadline, and it is not an obligation, but we want to get them out as soon as possible, and where we can, we will.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the statement today, just as I welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. My constituent, Alan, has been campaigning for justice for 37 years. He himself was infected as part of this scandal. The more I find out about this, the more chilling it becomes. Frankly, sometimes it reads like a plot from a horror movie—maybe one day it might even be one, because that is how bad and chilling this scandal is. But of course we know that this is not the only example of public organisations failing the people they are there to serve. Will the Minister confirm to me that transparency and accountability, when it comes to our public service, will be the key tenet and will rule the day?
John Glen
I absolutely can. My hon. Friend makes a very wise point and, not only in the conduct of this exercise but more generally, we need to be as transparent as possible. Yesterday, Sir Brian spoke about an insidious conflation of failure across multiple institutions that, over time, resulted in catastrophic outcomes. We need to come to terms properly with that to ensure that we put in whatever it takes to stop these things happening again.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Before today’s statement, I found it ironic that we had to wait for a public inquiry to try to get things moving. It is difficult to see why it took so long to find that we have a culture not just within our Government but within Departments, especially the Department of Health and Social Care, whereby whistleblowers are targeted and clarity is not brought out.
In saying that, I want to ask about Sir Brian’s 12 recommendations. The timeline for implementing all of the recommendations, which go across Departments, will mean taking this to the Cabinet to ensure that all Departments address the aspects of this report that affect them. I want to see a timeline for the date by which we will ensure the implementation of all 12 recommendations.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is right to assert the need for a timeline. I am not in a position to provide one today, but I have set out that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report soon after Whitsun. That will be an opportunity to give some initial clarity on the steps that are going to be taken. As the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will appreciate, there is a lot of complexity and we do not want to give a timetable that we cannot honour and deliver.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I again draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the issue of tracing all those affected and supporting those who may not be known to the inquiry, who may not be registered with one of our really good support organisations and who may not be on any list. Today, I have had contact with a family in my constituency, one of whom is very unwell with an illness that they believe they contracted from transfusions they had in the 1970s and ’80s. What advice would the Minister give to them on the steps they should take to determine whether they are eligible for this compensation?
John Glen
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. As time goes by, verifying what it takes for a person to qualify, if they are not currently registered, is something that the new body will need to clarify. Through the process of meaningful engagement in the coming weeks, I hope that some of these issues will be satisfactorily resolved.
We want to be as accessible as possible to all those who qualify, and we want to make the verification process for those who qualify as straightforward as reasonably possible. That is the guiding principle. I cannot give the details here today, but I will return to my hon. Friend’s point in future.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Ward, who is here today. He contacted me soon after I became a Member of Parliament and, like many, has continued to be a dogged campaigner. This report is some vindication, but justice will not be served until the campaigners have seen all aspects of the report being implemented.
I want to ask a few specific questions. The Minister said that he could not set the interim payments above £210,000 because of a fear of the safety of those payments. Is he therefore implying that £210,000 is the potential minimum payment that he expects? It is lower than the minimum interim payment for sub-postmasters, so I would like some clarity on what that means.
The Minister also says that he expects the payments to start within 90 days. Does he mean 90 days from now, to be completed by the summer, or a 90-day period in the summer? That was not quite clear.
Finally, public inquiries are at the gift of the Prime Minister. There is no formal way of agreeing to an inquiry, apart from campaigners and Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) forcing the Prime Minister to take action, which does not seem like a coherent way to right wrongs in this country. Will we start to think about a proper public inquiries reform that includes a duty of candour, a public advocate and a way for Committees of this House to launch such inquiries when serious matters occur?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Minister answers those questions, I make it clear that, after a statement of this kind, each Member has the opportunity to ask a question. I am very anxious that everybody who wishes to ask a question should be able to do so on behalf of their constituents, but it really has to be one question per Member. I have been lenient with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that the Minister will want to answer all his questions.
John Glen
On the £210,000, I took advice on the largest sum I could comfortably secure. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) will see documents published today on the schemes for different conditions, and I hope things will become clearer for him. I am happy to correspond with him on that.
On the timing, I said that the payments will happen within 90 days, beginning in the summer. I cannot say which day of the summer, but 90 days is the time period.
The hon. Gentleman, like Sir Brian, spoke about how public inquiries are initiated. How that would be implemented is a matter for further conversation in subsequent weeks and debates.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Like many others, I obviously welcome yesterday’s statement and today’s comprehensive follow-up. My Sedgefield constituent David Farry has been in touch to ask me to thank the Prime Minister for his apology, to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for initiating the public inquiry, and to thank Sir Brian for his work. I am sure David will have been pleased to hear the Minister’s words earlier.
I add my voice to those calling for this to be a watershed moment in public transparency. On behalf of David, can I ask for real progress as urgently as possible, so that David and others can start to think about moving on from these appalling events?
John Glen
I can assure David, and every individual affected, that we are doing everything we can to deliver this scheme as quickly as possible. We will also address the wider challenge to the culture of government and institutions in this country, and there will be an opportunity to discuss that in the coming weeks.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I pay tribute to all those who fought so hard for justice for so long. It is impossible to imagine the pain and harm done to so many, including to some of my Brighton constituents who have shared with me their deeply harrowing stories.
The setting up of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is very welcome, and I echo those who have called for the body to be made accountable to Parliament, but will the Government consider going further and potentially setting up an independent body to monitor and follow up all such recommendations and inquiries? Without such a mechanism, without such a body, there is a risk of a significant accountability gap, because no one is directly charged with the effective oversight of the implementation of all these recommendations.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her representations. That is certainly something that needs to be carefully considered in the context of all that Sir Brian has said.
One of the challenges on accountability is when recommendations made outside this place encounter the need for delivery. Sometimes that means that things have to be done slightly differently, but they meet the spirit of the recommendations. We need to make sure that, in the accountability mechanism, there is sufficient scope to recognise that challenge, otherwise we will be in a position of making false judgments. The spirit of what the hon. Lady says needs to be taken forward, and the Government need to reflect on that thoughtfully.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In 2010, my then constituent Andrew March, a victim of contaminated blood since the age of nine, succeeded in a judicial review that found that payment of compensation by the UK Government was flawed. He said:
“We hope that the Government will now consider the whole issue of compensating those so tragically affected by the contaminated blood disaster, instead of making token, derisory, ex-gratia payments.”
It has taken a further 14 years for Government to follow the lead of the courts, and now the inquiry, in calling for justice for Andrew and the thousands of other victims. From 2010 we attended countless meetings, debates and briefings, and heard warm words from a succession of Health Ministers. Nothing happened for years, then matters proceeded at a glacial pace. What mechanism will be enforced to ensure that the scheme announced today is implemented with rigour and urgency?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We can go back to the Governments of Heath, Callaghan, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Theresa May; all of them come under criticism. Theresa May initiated a public inquiry with significant input from numbers of people across the House. We on the Government side have all been clear that we wish things had happened sooner, but I am doing everything I can to move this forward today, and I am resisting any attempt to politicise it.
The hon. Gentleman makes points about accountability. We have an obligation within three months of Royal Assent to make regulations that will activate the arm’s length body. We have a shadow entity in place, an interim CEO and an interim chair, and engagement is planned for the coming days, with 20 people to be employed by the end of next week. I will continue to work with anyone and everyone across the House to ensure that we meet expectations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just for the record, I know that the right hon. Gentleman meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) as such. [Interruption.] There is no need for an apology. The right hon. Gentleman is answering very fully and correctly, and I did not want to interrupt him.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
There was much to welcome in what the Minister said today, but can I take him back to the issue of existing support schemes, which are of course incredibly important for so many? In the second interim report, recommendation 13 says that
“current annual payments under the support schemes should be continued…and guaranteed for life”
and that such payments should only be taken into account
“in assessing awards for future financial loss or care provision”.
It was not immediately clear to me that what the Minister said today is consistent with that recommendation and its implementation. Could he provide that clarity now, because this is very important for people listening?
John Glen
Yes I absolutely can—I have been very clear about the Government’s continuing commitment on existing support schemes. However, there is a point at which the assessment for compensation entitlement is made under the new scheme, and there will be an interaction with schemes that have come before. Options will then be set out. I want to provide reassurance on that today; the detail of how that will work out must be done with the consent and approval of the communities involved.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I want to build on a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) earlier about the risk of unscrupulous financial advisers swooping in. It is appalling even to think that it might be possible, but we have a lot of experience of that from dealing with the British Steel pension scheme, and I would be happy to discuss any of those lessons learned with the Minister.
My constituent David Farrugia tragically lost his father 40 years ago due to this appalling scandal. Can I press the Minister for more detail on the specifics of how the scheme will work for bereaved children and parents of victims? How and when will they be able to register for compensation?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have previously engaged on the British Steel matter and the unscrupulous exploitation of people moving from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. That is at the top of my mind and I am applying it to my consideration of these matters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about his constituent David and bereaved children. The principle is that affected and infected individuals qualify in their own right. The passporting of affected individuals to qualify, based on the infected and the estates of infected, is clear. The details of how that process will happen will become very clear very quickly. We will make resources available through a website, and people can register for updates so that they can receive them as quickly as they wish. Forgive me, I cannot say more than that today, but I think I have set out the principles of how this will operate. The operationalisation needs to happen quickly, and I will provide updates on that in due course.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Robert Angwin, who has campaigned for justice for himself and all others who have been affected by this scandal for decades.
Yesterday and today, from both sides of the House we have heard the line, “Lessons have been learned. Action will be taken.” I imagine that that is exactly what we would have heard if we were here in 1972 when the thalidomide scandal broke. Since then, we have had OxyContin, Vioxx and Primodos—the list goes on and on, all the way to the experimental covid-19 vaccines today.
Does the Minister agree that the only real lesson that has been learned has been learned by the public—that they cannot trust any Government to protect them from unsafe medicines and treatments? Crimes have been committed. It is a crime to cover up a crime. When are the arrests going to start? If they have to include current and former Members of this House, so be it.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Sir Robert makes clear some very profound challenges to the British state that need a profound response from Government, and that will happen in due course.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituent Linda Cannon lost her husband after he received a blood transfusion that infected him with hepatitis C. My constituent Vera Gaskin has stage 2 chronic cirrhosis of the liver from contaminated blood. She spends her life explaining that she is not an alcoholic. What guidance or comfort does the Minister have for my constituents that anybody overseeing compensation and justice will be fully transparent and will not end up in the mess in which the expert panel of the Primodos scandal ended up?
Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the general election due to be held this year will not delay any part of this process? We cannot have a situation where the structures and procedures of this place, which have so long protected those in power and allowed them to do harm, will thwart the justice in progress for all our constituents.
John Glen
The hon. Lady makes a powerful representation on behalf of Linda, Vera and so many others. I can assure her that speed is of the essence. In all circumstances I am trying to move forward, with the will of the House as it is. I cannot account for when electoral events will be triggered, but I can say that the points about sensitivity to the individual experience and the stigma and trauma associated with engaging with officialdom in all aspects need to be properly addressed through the way that the arm’s length body is operated.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I want to put on record the tenacity of my constituent Steve Bartram, a victim of the blood scandal. He contracted hepatitis when he was seven after being experimented on. He was driven out of his home because people believed that he had an infectious disease and had to be run out. He then came to my constituency. I say to the Minister that Steve welcomes what has been said but is anxious, like thousands of others, that it will not work out. I guess he could look at a compensation scheme like the one for the Windrush scandal, where less than 10% of those who are owed compensation have received anything. Steve and many others, with good reason, are extremely anxious that the Government will follow through on this. Can the Minister ensure that they do?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is a reasonable characterisation that this is welcome but that there is anxiety. It is my job to meet that anxiety with practical steps that secure confidence in the passage to full delivery. I have set out those in some detail. There will be a number of documents that the hon. Gentleman can send to his constituents to support what I have said, as can all colleagues across the House. I hope that will be helpful and informative and will remove some of the anxiety that exists.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is vital that we not only thank the campaigners who have struggled through pain and loss to get to this situation but appreciate the deep public service they have carried out in exposing this outrageous scandal. Although I welcome what seems to be a comprehensive statement on compensation today, this scandal has gone on too long and should be concluded quickly for compensation to be paid. However, that is only part of the issue of justice for the campaigners. I appreciate what the Minister said about his ability to talk about future events, but will he at least commit his Government to the principle of ensuring that those involved in deliberate cover-up, adding to delay and suffering and causing death, will face justice themselves?
John Glen
I cannot speak for the collective will of Government, but the hon. Gentleman makes a completely reasonable and logical case. I support the principles in what he says. We need to respond the report’s recommendations specifically, coherently and in full, and that is what we will do in due course.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Yesterday’s apology and the compensation announced today is the beginning of justice for the thousands of lives lost and ruined. The Minister will know that Sir Brian Langstaff found “downright deception” and “an attitude of denial”, and that he was clear that the scandal has been no accident. Public service is an honour that comes with great responsibility. Individuals and organisations have failed in that responsibility and betrayed that honour. I heard the Minister’s earlier responses, but will he at least indicate to us when the Government will express a view on criminal charges?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful representation on that matter. I cannot give her a categorical assurance, but by setting out the clear opportunity to discuss the report in its different dimensions, hopefully in a few weeks’ time, I hope we will start that process. Other Ministers will lead on some of the matters and where the evidence leads us will determine our options, but she speaks for many hon. Members across the House when she says that these are serious matters that need a serious response from different elements of Government.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I want to acknowledge three of my constituents who have been in touch over the past few weeks: one lost her brother and her cousin as a result of treatment for haemophilia; and two, including Karen Pearce, have suffered lifelong health problems as a result of being infected. I have been in this place for rather less time than many of my colleagues—less than two and a half years—but, just in that short period, I am struck by the number of scandals involving huge institutional cover-ups. I echo the comment, made by colleagues from all parties, that we must have a duty of candour, because we will repeat mistakes again and again until we have that.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for point about a duty of candour, which several hon. Members have made. The Government will reflect very carefully and respond in due course.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the Paymaster General’s statement, but many of us have been coming here for the past year asking for a response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report from last April. We have been told that the Government are moving at pace, but there is no evidence of that, even with today’s statement. Sir Brian Langstaff has made some clear recommendations about how he wants oversight of the recommendations going forward. That must involve the victims, because that is why we are here today. The victims, who have doggedly and determinedly demanded that they have justice in this affair, have brought us to this point, where the Paymaster General is making a statement, and they must have oversight of how we respond to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, just as the House must have. Members from across the House have been trying to hold the Government to account. The Horizon scheme has an advisory body to oversee compensation, which includes hon. Members from this House and the other place. Does the Minister envisage having a similar advisory body for this compensation scheme?
John Glen
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can characterise what I have announced today as not making significant progress. I am not here to claim credit for it or to say what it is attributed to, other than the work of Sir Brian Langstaff and those who have campaigned. The immediate next steps will be the work of Sir Robert Francis—this is at the core of what I have said—to engage with the infected and affected community, and to define the regulations that the Government are rightly obliged to bring to the House within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman makes another point about how the House can be involved in the accountability of that arm’s length body. I am happy to reflect on that and come back at another point.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
May I put on the record my absolute admiration for the victims, their families and loved ones throughout the process? I pay tribute to my constituent Susan Hallwood and her partner Dave McCall. Susan had three sons, all of whom had haemophilia. Two received contaminated blood, and both contracted HIV and died of AIDS: Brian aged 16, and Stephen aged nine. Susan gave evidence at the inquiry, and I thank her for doing so. It is right that they are receiving an apology and compensation, but of course that will never be enough. I ask the Minister to address the issue of individual accountability, for those culpable of doing wrong, and organisational accountability. What can he do to ensure this is not another example of compensation without accountability to add to Hillsborough, Windrush and other scandals we have seen?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about his constituents Susan and David and their family. He also makes the point that compensation by itself is clearly not enough. With respect to the wider accountability of institutions, hospitals and civil servants, and the interaction between civil servants, Government Ministers and the NHS, there is a lot of complexity about how we respond appropriately and thoughtfully, both on the cases taken together and individually. I hope he will respect what I am saying and that we can engage on this in the Chamber at a future point.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I was contacted this morning by a constituent who, to the best of my knowledge, has never come forward before; I am still trying to establish that. As a 12-year-old girl, she received a blood transfusion that was infected with hepatitis C. She has lived with that infection for 70 years, because she was infected not in the 1970s but in the 1950s. Will the Minister give an assurance that the compensation and other support that has been outlined today will be available to all victims, regardless of how long ago they were infected? Will he outline what he is doing to ensure that others, such as my constituent, do not miss out simply because they did not realise this applies to them?
John Glen
The eligibility is clear: people who were infected by NHS blood, blood products and infected tissue qualify. The only challenge is how to verify that from records from a long time ago. However, such challenges can be met and we need to find ways of doing so.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all those infected and affected in my constituency of Cynon Valley, in Wales and beyond, in particular Lynne Kelly, the chair of Haemophilia Wales, who has campaigned tirelessly, over many decades, for justice. The inquiry’s compensation report recommended that an interim payment be made to
“recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised”,
including to bereaved parents, children and siblings. The Minister met with Haemophilia Wales a fortnight ago and will be aware there are 28 such cases in Wales. In his statement he made reference to interim payments, but will he clarify that interim payments for previously unrecognised deaths, including those in Wales, will be made? Will he be specific about when individuals will receive those payments? Will they be paid through the Wales infected blood support scheme, or will they have to wait for the UK compensation scheme to be established?
John Glen
The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to Lynne Kelly, whom I met in Cardiff. To clarify, I have been talking about two interim payments. We have put one payment into legislation to provide £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected, where previously they have not received that payment. We are working through how that will work with the infected blood support schemes. I cannot update the House on that at this moment because we are working with the schemes to determine that.
The second interim payment for the living infected is £210,000, building on the £100,00 at the end of 2022. That will happen within 90 days, starting in the summer, and it will be given through the existing infected blood compensation scheme’s interim payments in order to expedite it as quickly as possible. Then we will update in the autumn with respect to the balance in payments, which, as Members will recognise, is part of a bigger payment that people will be entitled to, and how that works according to the journey of work and engagement with the communities over the next few weeks.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
For more than 20 years, I have supported constituents caught up in this unprecedented scandal and tragedy. I wish to mention just two of them: Bill Wright, whom the Minister knows, who has led Haemophilia Scotland with such energy and enthusiasm for the past three decades; and Tricia Titheridge, who introduced me to the scandal back in 2001 when I was first elected. Unfortunately, she cannot be with us because she died of AIDS-related conditions in 2013.
I wish to say well done to the Minister, because I think he has delivered. He has answered questions and reassured people genuinely well about some of the outstanding issues. I had suspected that I would be called last in this statement, so I will just say to him that he will know what is now required. I think he has the compensation side of it right, but it is the responsibility and accountability side of the equation that now has to be addressed. He has talked about a debate when we come back after Whitsun. He has hinted that other Departments will be looking at all of this, but we need to know what tangible effort and energy will be put into this to ensure that the people responsible are held to account for the decades of obfuscation, of not taking responsibility and for the lies that came to us as Members of Parliament from Ministers and officials. When will we hear about the solid action that will be taken to address all of this?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, particularly his words about Bill Wright, whom I enjoyed meeting, and who has campaigned on this so hard and for so long. Bill and his colleagues engaged with me in a constructive way, asking me reasonable but tough questions, and I hope that I have answered some of those today. The hon. Gentleman draws me from the compensation to other elements, and I am frustrated that I cannot offer him more clarity today, but he puts on record the need for a substantive response on a number of other elements beyond compensation. He can be assured of my continuing commitment to deliver on that journey to full implementation of compensation, as I have set out.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
Twenty years ago, the late former chair of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, Philip Dolan, said that, for years, every time we have reached the top of the mountain, the cloud lifts and there is another mountain to climb. I think, from the Minister’s statement today, there is some sense that there might not be another mountain to climb, but there is a need for some transparency, particularly in what he has said about eligibility, tariffs, the appeal process and, crucially, timelines, so that people can have confidence about when this will happen. Will people have access to legal aid if they wish to appeal their case?
On the point about existing compensation schemes, there has been some concern from a number of people about what has been announced today. In answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the Minister said that they would be shaped by people, and that these schemes would not simply be abolished, but he has put a firm deadline of 31 March 2025, so can he outline exactly how people will be part of that process so they do not feel that they have lost out once again in this process?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. I have not said that the existing schemes will stop on 31 March 2025. What I have committed to is that thereafter there will be a process, uncertain at this point, with respect to when individuals will have their full assessment made, and I have made some assertions on how that needs to work. I have not set out some of the other things around accountability, transparency and so on, because they need to be informed by the communities, through the process that Sir Robert Francis will be leading in the coming weeks. I hope it will be a constructive, iterative process with the Government in order that the output of that work will subsequently lead us to the right position in terms of the regulations that we bring before the House.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I start by paying tribute to two of my constituents here today? Rachel and Justine Gordon-Smith have fought an extraordinary battle on behalf of their father over many years. I pay tribute to their strength and ability to continue in the face of what sometimes looked like intransigence from the Government. They and the infected blood community will, I know, welcome much of what the Minister has announced today, but they are understandably wary of Government after the deceptions and delays of the past. Can he guarantee full transparency in the deliberations of the arm’s length body, and does he agree that appropriate governance, as he says, would be achieved by including representatives of the community as members?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Indeed, I have met Justine Gordon-Smith, who, having lost her father, has been a tenacious campaigner on behalf of so many. I can confirm that we will do everything we can to ensure that we find a way to work with all infected and affected communities—there are considerable differences between them in their views on how things should be conducted—as these regulations are formed, and also to ensure that the right oversight takes place so that this arm’s length body will be something that they can rely on and have full confidence in, wherever they are in the UK.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Six constituents have been in touch with me who have been infected and affected by this awful scandal. Many of them still want to maintain anonymity, such is the stigma that persists today about the illnesses that they have contracted, but I was very pleased to see that my constituent Maria was there yesterday. She first came to see me in December 2015. Eight-and-a-half years, on top of the long time that she already had to wait, is a long and arduous journey. I am glad and I hope that she and all those infected and affected got what they wanted from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report yesterday.
I wish to ask the Minister about what he said in his statement about interim payments. I am not clear whether the six constituents who have been in touch with me will be eligible for those because he said that interim payments will be made to living infected beneficiaries, and to the estates of those who passed away between now and payments being made. It is not clear to me whether, if somebody tragically passed away yesterday, their estates would be eligible for that; nor is it clear from the interim report whether all such people would be eligible until the final scheme is in place. It would be perverse, would it not, if children whose parents have died or adults who have tragically lost their children might not be eligible for these interim payments. Can I ask for some clarity on that eligibility because there are people who should not be losing out—they have already suffered too much—and they should be eligible for these payments as soon as possible.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I noted her presence there yesterday, alongside me. I am happy to engage with her to clarify the position for her individual constituents. I am reluctant to make binding assertions on individuals on the Floor of the House because I do not want to mislead her or anyone else. But I would be very happy, if she writes to me, to respond to her as fully as I can.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to ask a question. First, may I thank the Government for their apology and for their compensation? I thank the Minister for his tone and his words, which were very humbly spoken, and which I think encouraged us all across this Chamber. That is not easy to do, given all the questions that are put forward.
Victims have highlighted what they deem to be a lack of recognition and a lack of accountability. Today, there is a recognition, yet I feel that within the accountability there must be safeguards to ensure that similar medical experimental methods cannot be permitted to take hold and bring these devastating results ever again. Does the Minister not agree that, while we cannot put right the wrong, we can and must safeguard future children and adults and that this dreadful family-destroying, heartbreaking, life-changing lesson is one which we have all unwillingly and, indeed, shamefully learnt?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question, and I put on record my satisfaction at being in Belfast as part of the engagement exercise I undertook. In some ways, some of what Sir Brian Langstaff spoke about we could not envisage happening again, because of changes that have happened in the health service and the way things operate 40 or 50 years on, but what he talks about is much deeper: it is about the culture of transparency, dependency and candour between civil servants, the NHS and Government. That is a much more complicated set of issues to meet appropriately and fully. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not be able to respond to his specific point today. However, he articulates the challenge that we need to meet as a Government, and I look forward to playing my part, whatever that is, in meeting it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on the statement. I thank the Minister for having taken a very large number of questions, for having remained at the Dispatch Box for well over two hours and for having answered every question thoroughly and carefully.
Point of Order
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, this morning a Home Office-commissioned report from Lord Walney was presented in Parliament using the motion for unopposed return procedure, effectively protecting it from any kind of legal challenge. However, the report reads as a highly political document and includes proposals, for example, for very serious restrictions on civil liberties and human rights. I understand it is not in order for Members to criticise a member of the House of Lords in the Chamber, and Lord Walney’s interests as a paid adviser for the arms and oil industry are registered in the Register of Lords’ Interests. However, could you advise the House on whether, when a report is given legal cover by this House, it would be at least healthy for scrutiny to have an additional requirement for any relevant interest by a report’s author to be specifically flagged to this House as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can confirm that the effect of this morning’s motion is that the report was published by order of the House. She asks about the financial interests of members of the House of Lords, which of course is not a matter for the Chair of the House of Commons, but I appreciate that she makes a serious and valid point about the way in which the matter has been presented to this House. If she has concerns about the content of the report, I would advise her to discuss with the Table Office how she might pursue the matter further. There are various lines of action open to her.
Children (Parental Imprisonment)
Tuesday 21st May 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Children (Parental Imprisonment) Bill 2023-24 View all Children (Parental Imprisonment) 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
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish national policy guidelines in respect of children with a parent in prison, including for the identification of the children of prisoners at the point of sentence and for accountability for providing support to the children of prisoners; and for connected purposes.
I want to start by saying what this Bill is not about. It is not about prisoners, although there is some good and important work being done with prisoners and their families. We know there is often a value in maintaining family ties: it helps prisoners to cope with their sentences and makes it less likely that they will reoffend when they are released. However, this Bill is not about them. It is about their children, some of whom will have contact with their parent in prison and many of whom will not. If the parent is inside for domestic violence or for sexual offences involving children, or, indeed, if the child was the victim of the parent’s crime, there might not be contact. If there has been a long history of criminal behaviour, of addiction or violence, or if there was never much of a family unit in the first place, there might not be contact.
Therefore, we do not start with the prisoner’s wellbeing; we start with what is in the child’s best interest—and we start from a difficult place, because we simply do not know how many children have a parent in prison. We do not know who they are, where they are or who is looking after them, or at least not in any systemic way. They are the invisible children. Sarah Burrows, who is here today, is the chief executive of Children Heard and Seen, a charity that does excellent work to identify, mentor and support children with parents in prison. She is fond of saying that we know exactly how many Labradors there are in this country, yet we do not know how many children have a parent in prison. That is why this Bill is needed.
I am not going to prejudge now what a statutory mechanism for identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison would look like, although I pay tribute to Sergeant Russ Massie of Thames Valley police, and the work he has led on Operation Paramount, and I think that the unique child identifier number that is being proposed by Labour’s education team might play a role. In 2019, Crest Advisory estimated that around 312,000 children a year were affected by parental imprisonment, and for 17,000 of them it was their mother. The Ministry of Justice has now commissioned a BOLD—better outcomes through linked data—report, which will use Government data to measure the scale of parental imprisonment and estimate how many children have a parent in prison. Those statistics will be released on 13 June. There has been a lot of work behind the scenes to get to this point, and I particularly thank the hon. and learned Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for his help, the Children’s Commissioner, who has backed this Bill, and the various Ministers who have met us over the years.
However, we need more than just a snapshot of how many children are affected. We need a statutory mechanism so that, at the point when an adult is sentenced to imprisonment, someone finds out whether there are any children involved and someone is then responsible for making sure that those children are okay. We know that at the moment that is not always picked up. Sometimes the question is not asked. Sometimes a prisoner does not want the authorities to know because they are worried the kids will be taken into care. Often schools have no idea. Children Heard and Seen has seen cases where children have simply been left to fend for themselves, and I want to mention a few.
A man went to prison for sexual offences, and it was only after the house was targeted by vigilantes that a Victim Support caseworker found his 15-year-old daughter living there on her own. A criminologist conducting research in a women’s prison was told by a prisoner that her two daughters were living on their own, without any money for food or sanitary protection. A 16-year-old boy was arrested at the same time as his parents. He was released shortly afterwards and left to be the sole carer of his eight-year-old brother. An employer requested a welfare check after a woman had not shown up to work for two months. When the police went to the address, they discovered her 15-year-old son living on his own. There was no gas or electricity, and he had been getting up and going to school every day without anyone knowing that his mum was in prison.
Kinship carers—grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings—often play an important role in stepping up when a parent goes to prison, and they need support to do so. However, there is also a real risk that children will end up living somewhere entirely unsuitable, with people who will abuse them, neglect them and exploit them. More often than not there is a parent, usually the mother, at home, but children can still be badly affected.
One of the bloggers on the Children Heard and Seen website says:
“We’re not victims, we are collateral damage.”
There is an emotional loss and a sense of abandonment. There is perhaps a sense of injustice if they feel their mum or dad has been wrongfully jailed, or anger that their mum or dad has chosen to commit a crime, not caring what happens to them as a result. On a practical level, it could mean a big change in the family’s financial situation, having to move house, move schools, or go on to free school meals, or having to change their names and leave town altogether because it has been all over the papers that their dad is a sex offender. I have met a family that happened to.
Perhaps most damaging of all is the stigma and the shame of being associated with a parent’s crime—being bullied at school or seen as trouble by the teachers. As one mother said:
“I’ve moved areas because I felt like I was being watched all the time—people were talking and we were being discriminated against, when it was not something that we’ve done.
Kids are innocent and I’ve had to move schools, which has just been more upheaval. It’s just a nightmare.”
Children Heard and Seen use the hashtag #itwasntme. The child has done nothing wrong, but in many ways the child is punished too.
The 2019 research from Crest Advisory that I mentioned earlier found that children of prisoners are at risk of significantly worse outcomes than children not affected by parental imprisonment, including lifelong mental health problems and being involved in the criminal justice system themselves later in life. It has been suggested that 65% of boys with a parent in prison go on to offend. Others say that a child with a parent in prison is three or four times more likely to get into trouble, although it is difficult to separate out other factors in a child’s upbringing—the same factors that might have led the parent to become involved in crime, such as poverty or family instability. It is clear that by supporting and mentoring children, it is possible to break that cycle. I have met many adults, from all walks of life, who are still deeply affected by the trauma of their childhood experience. We have met in this building; we have shared stories. It is striking just how difficult it is for them to talk about it, many years down the line. It is clear that by supporting and mentoring children, it is possible to break that cycle. I have met many adults, from all walks of life, who are still deeply affected by the trauma of their childhood experience. We have met in this building; we have shared stories. It is striking just how difficult it is for them to talk about it, many years down the line.
A few months ago, I watched “The Edge of Everything”, a brilliant documentary about Ronnie O’Sullivan, whose father was jailed for murder when he was 17. It was heartbreaking to hear him talk about that, and to see the pain writ large on his face some 30 years later. He has been world No. 1 and has won world championships, yet that experience still very much lives with him.
Other celebrities have also spoken out about their experiences. John Bishop was six when his father went to jail. He has said that visiting him
“was a dehumanising experience. We were treated like cattle… The injustice my dad suffered had a massive impact on the person I am.”
Romesh Ranganathan has also spoken about visiting his dad, who was serving a two-year sentence for fraud. He said:
“It was horrific. You just become numb to it. Those experiences definitely had a profound effect on me.”
Every child’s story will be different. Some children who have a parent in prison might be doing just fine, but the chances are that they are not, so we need to know who they are, where they are, how they are coping and who is looking after them. They are not to blame; it wasn’t them.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kerry McCarthy, Mr Clive Betts, Sir Robert Buckland, Andrew Gwynne, Ms Harriet Harman, Dame Diana Johnson, Tim Loughton, John McDonnell, Jess Phillips, Edward Timpson, Nadia Whittome and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 222).
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Tuesday 21st May 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Manuscript Amendment as at 21 May 2024 - (21 May 2024)
15:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of Sir Chris Bryant. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
After Clause 308
Secondary ticketing facilities
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment 104B.
The Bill will drive growth and deliver better outcomes for consumers across the UK. Both Houses have now reached agreement on digital markets measures relating to appeals, proportionality, the countervailing benefits exemption and guidance. However, the Bill returns to the House today as the need to agree on secondary ticketing remains outstanding.
Lords amendment 104B, tabled by Lord Moynihan, would introduce additional regulatory requirements on resale sites. In our view, new regulations should be considered only if they are necessary, proportionate and future-proof, and should not duplicate existing rules. Simply adding new rules and regulations that add little to what is already there is not the answer to the problems of the secondary ticketing market.
The first provision that the Lords seek to add to the Bill would require secondary ticketing platforms to obtain proof of purchase of the ticket from the reseller before listing the ticket for resale, but it is already a criminal offence—of unfair trading or fraud—for a reseller to offer for sale products that cannot be legally sold.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, as well as to Lord Moynihan, who has doggedly pursued this matter with the Government. My hon. Friend rightly points out that making additional regulations for the sake of it is not something that we as a Government would support, but can he tell me why the Competition and Markets Authority has prosecuted so few people under the current regulatory structure over recent years?
Kevin Hollinrake
We believe that the problem is about enforcement, not regulations. The reason why the CMA has not prosecuted anybody is that it does not have the responsibility or the right to prosecute sellers on ticketing sites. It has jurisdiction over the platforms, but not the sellers. We are giving the CMA that opportunity and those powers, which we think will make a profound difference.
Secondly, the Lords amendment requires that the ticket’s face value and trader’s details be clearly visible to the consumer, but likewise, existing legislation already provides that traders must make that information clear and comprehensible. The amendment would also prevent resellers from selling more tickets than can be legally purchased from the primary market. We agree with the principle, but believe that to be unenforceable. Many sources on the primary market sell tickets, and each has their own ticket limit.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Bill could have such a significant impact in tackling the issues associated with secondary ticket sites, and could reduce instances of fraud and online scams. I do not understand why the Minister is so reluctant to commit to the recommendations made by the CMA. That is all we want implemented through the Lords amendment.
Kevin Hollinrake
The CMA report differs from the amendment proposed by the Lords. We believe that Lord Moynihan’s requirements relating to face value and the address of the trader are already covered. What is missing from the amendment is the ability to enforce regulations. There have been prosecutions only recently, a couple of months ago; there has been a four-year sentence and a £6 million confiscation order, so we are seeing prosecutions by National Trading Standards, but we believe that the CMA will have a more profound effect if it can tackle this issue.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
My question is similar to that of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I just do not understand why the Government do not get involved with this. From what I have read of the Lords debate and what Lord Moynihan said, that is exactly what happened for the London Olympics in 2012. Ireland has got rid of the secondary market because it thought it very corrosive indeed. I also understand that fans are frequently in tears outside venues such as the O2 because they have bought the wrong tickets from the secondary market. As the political wing of the very noble tartan army, I would not want fans to be unable to get into games at the Euros in the coming weeks because of irregularities in the secondary market. If that happens, will the Minister commit to coming back and changing tack?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises important points. Alongside what we are doing to give the CMA more enforcement powers, which we think are needed, we are also committing to a review of the primary and secondary market over the next nine months, in order to see what else can be done to ensure that the secondary ticketing process is fairer for consumers.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The Minister is generous in giving way, and I appreciate it. Has he spoken to his counterparts in Ireland about what they have done in this area, why they have done it, and what the effects have been? That might be instructive.
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, we are aware of what is happening in Ireland, where there is a complete prohibition on secondary ticketing sales. Our concern about that is obvious: secondary sales are then just driven underground into a black market. That is what we have seen in Ireland. Indeed, tickets to see Taylor Swift in Dublin are available on the internet at exactly the same, or a similar, price as tickets to see her in the UK, so we do not think that is a solution. We are looking for a practical solution that works across the piece.
A person could purchase multiple tickets from different sources on the primary market and resell them on a platform. That would make it nearly impossible for either the platform or an enforcer to calculate what the total limit of tickets should be. We must avoid the trap of thinking that we are solving problems simply by adding words to legislation. We should not be tempted to devise legislation that cannot be implemented.
We believe that the solution lies not in more regulations, but in regulation—in other words, enforcement. This House has already radically strengthened the CMA’s enforcement powers in part 3 of the Bill. That strengthening applies to all consumer law, including on secondary ticketing. The CMA will have civil fining powers, and fines could total 10% of the global turnover of firms breaking consumer law. New powers will mean that the CMA can process many more cases even more quickly.
However, the Government appreciate the strength of feeling in both Houses on the issue of secondary ticketing. We have therefore tabled Government amendments to further strengthen the enforcement powers. Amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 104B will give the CMA new powers, first to enforce existing rules against unfair buying-up of tickets using electronic bots, and secondly to enforce existing rules on the information that platforms and resellers must present to consumers. That is in addition to the Government’s previous commitment to review the primary and secondary ticketing markets. That review will allow us to gain a deep understanding of how tickets flow from the primary market to the secondary market. It will also include consideration of the timeliness and effectiveness of the information that must be provided to buyers, and of what reassurance is necessary for consumers to be confident that ticket offers are genuine.
Taken together, the CMA’s new enforcement powers and the upcoming Government review represent a clear strengthening of consumer protections. They will help to ensure that further steps can be taken in future, in the light of the good practice that has recently been emerging in the market.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am again grateful to the Minister for giving way, but like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I am still stumped as to why the Government are not the champion of the consumer—the small person or small family who face the disappointment of financial loss. I hear what the Minister says about laws being enforced—that could apply to any law—but laws also have a deterrent effect, and it would be quite useful to have that deterrent effect.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I agree with him about the deterrent effect, but to me, that deterrent effect is delivered through enforcement and prosecutions, which are making it easier to deal with the platforms. As for the Lords amendment, information such as the seller’s address is already required under schedule 2 to the 2013 consumer contracts regulations, and the face value of the ticket must be displayed under clause 90(3)(c) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so that is already covered. It is enforcement that we need to improve.
Sir Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the selling-on of tickets has always happened, and always will? It is important to reinforce existing safeguards, rather than making the secondary ticketing market unviable and pushing people into unregulated spaces where they get no protection at all. At the moment, they do get protection from most of the sites that sell tickets on the secondary market.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The concern is that we would simply drive people into a black market; that seems to have happened in Ireland. The CMA has said that capping prices, which is what the Opposition want, would not reduce the incentive to resell, for exactly the reasons my hon. Friend has pointed out, so through the Bill, we are taking the pragmatic step of increasing the enforcement of current regulations, while also looking at the wider picture, in the review, to see whether improvements can be made. We think that is the right balance.
In conclusion, I encourage this House to agree with the Government’s position on Lords amendment 104B, and accept the Government’s proposed amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. It is imperative that Royal Assent be achieved without further delay, so that the legislation can be implemented and the Bill’s benefits realised as quickly as possible.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I beg to move manuscript amendment (a), leave out from “House” and insert
“agrees with the Lords in their Amendment”.
I confess that I am completely perplexed as to why the Government have adopted the attitude that they have taken today. The Bill could have gone through both Houses quite easily and have steamed ahead to Royal Assent if they had simply agreed to these very minor recommendations from the House of Lords. We do something very similar to what the amendment suggests in relation to Olympics tickets, partly because the Olympics’ organisers insist on such legislation for any Olympics, but we also do something very similar for sporting events. The question of why we do not do exactly the same for music, comedy and other events is legitimate.
Sir Chris Bryant
The Minister has only just sat down, but now he is intervening on me.
Kevin Hollinrake
I just wanted to address one of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He talks about the Olympics, for which there was a complete ban on resale. Is that what he is proposing?
Sir Chris Bryant
No. If the Minister will listen for a few more minutes, I will get on to precisely what we recommend. Indeed, he may remember that in the last debate on this issue, I said very clearly that we do not intend to ban all resale. If somebody has a ticket that they bought themselves, not through a bot, but is unable to use it and wants to resell it, that should be a perfectly legitimate process, but the price should be capped at a sensible level—at something like 10% or 15% above the original cost.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I just want to help the Minister correct the record. Through the Olympics legislation, we as a Parliament did not ban resale; we said that resale had to be authorised. I did not want him to have that wrong on the record.
Sir Chris Bryant
Indeed. I will come to authorised resale later, because it is a real problem with the way that the market operates. Fans are very unclear whether the ticket they have bought through the secondary market is authorised by the original vendor—that is, the venue or one of its authorised vendors—and therefore whether they will actually be admitted in the end. That is one of the problems: even when fans are paying very inflated prices, they are not certain that the ticket they are buying is a genuine ticket that will gain them admittance to the event they have paid for.
Over the years, Members have repeatedly given evidence—
Sir Chris Bryant
I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me make a little progress. I am still on the first sentence of my speech.
Over the years, Members have repeatedly given evidence that the secondary ticket market is not working: with tickets advertised with no declaration as to whether they are real, or of their face value; websites that only declare the face value of a ticket at the very last stage, with a clock ticking away and the fan already hooked; fake tickets being sold, leaving consumers out of pocket and completely in the lurch; tickets sold without evidence of proof of purchase, or of the seller’s title to the tickets; and websites circumventing artists and venues’ policies on the resale of tickets.
Taylor Swift tickets with a face value of £75 are presently selling on Viagogo for £6,840. If a Foo Fighters fan from the Rhondda wanted to buy a ticket to see them at Cardiff’s Principality Stadium, it would have cost them £95 direct from that stadium; on Viagogo today, that exact same ticket would cost them £395. If a child from the Rhondda who loves space and hopes to one day become an aeronautical engineer wanted to see “Tim Peake: Astronauts - The Quest to Explore Space” at Swansea Arena, they would have paid £48.75 face value; on Viagogo, they would have to find £134. This is about much more than just price gouging and ripping people off from their hard-earned money: it is robbing children of their chance to be inspired, to spark a creative idea, to see a career in our growing creative industries, or to learn from an expert. That is why I wish the Government were adopting the measure passed by the House of Lords.
Fans, the people who really create the value, are being excluded from live concerts. The UK’s secondary ticketing market is estimated to be worth £1 billion annually, but it is rife with fraud and scamming, which affects people every single day. I would not even mind if just some of the inflated price money went into the creative industries, and into training young people and providing them with a creative education, but not a single penny of it does. It is set to get worse, too: ticketing security expert Reg Walker has reported “a massive escalation” of harvesting using software. People who have long used bots to bulk-buy items such as iPhones are now turning to ticket touting because it is more profitable, and according to Reg Walker, there is a new generation of young, tech-savvy armchair touts
“smashing ticket systems to bits”.
It is a market that simply does not work, and Labour will fix it.
The Lords have given us a perfectly sensible measure. Their amendment establishes a legal requirement that secondary ticketing facilities must not permit a trade or business to list tickets without evidence of proof of purchase or evidence of title, a matter not mentioned by the Minister. It forbids a reseller from selling more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase on the primary market. It requires the face value of any ticket listed for resale, and the trader or business’s name and trading address, to be clearly visible in full on the first page on which a purchaser can view the ticket—I have had a bit of debate with the Minister about that proposal, so I will come on to the specifics later. It also requires the Government to lay before Parliament the outcomes of a review of the effect of these measures on the secondary ticketing market within nine months of Royal Assent. I cannot understand why any sane person would oppose such a measure, unless it was purely and simply for ideological reasons.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On such ideological reasons, the Conservative party claims to be the party of Adam Smith, but if we read “The Wealth of Nations”, we see that the behaviour of the rentier class is not exactly praised by Adam Smith, and this is pure rent seeking. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is taking a ticket at £75, charging 90 times that and doing nothing to add any value at all. This is rent seeking, and ideologically it should be opposed by the Conservative party.
Sir Chris Bryant
The hon. Member makes a very good point. Indeed, in the main the market is a good thing—it can operate to produce good and efficient outcomes in society—but in this case the market is not working, and where the market does not work, the state has to intervene.
I cannot understand why any sane person should oppose such a measure, but unfortunately the Government have. Their amendment (a) in lieu is a weak sock puppet of a concession. It does not strengthen the rules; it simply leaves them in place. It does not prevent tickets from being sold without evidence of proof of purchase or the seller’s title to the tickets. It does not limit the quantity of resale tickets to the original number limited by the seller or artist. It leaves in place the current system for showing the face value of a ticket, despite the fact that section 90(8) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in my view and in the view of everybody who has spoken to Members about this, is very opaque and open to interpretation—or, I would argue, open to deliberate misinterpretation by the secondary ticketing market.
For instance, Viagogo does not say “face value”, but has a little box that says “FV”, which is not explained anywhere on the website, and people have to click on that. If Viagogo genuinely wanted to be open and transparent, it would say “face value”, and put the price at the very beginning. StubHub is similarly advertising tickets for Taylor Swift on 21 June at £711, but nowhere on the first page does it give the face value. I note that, if someone goes on to the second page, it says $75 there, but I am told that that is not the actual cost of the ticket. Seatsnet has tickets for Murrayfield—for Taylor Swift again—selling at £1,294.79 or £1,092.15 each, and nowhere does it give the face value of the tickets. Interestingly, AEG Presents and AXS, which are managing the tickets for the concerts at Murrayfield, say that tickets are strictly not to be resold:
“Any tickets found to be purchased via re-sale on the non-official secondary market will not be valid for entry into the concerts.”
In other words, it is completely in doubt whether the tickets being sold at £711 or £1,294 are tickets that will actually gain admittance for an individual.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman referred to Viagogo, and I have just gone on to its website. He mentioned the “FV” symbol, but when I click on it, it tells me the face value of the ticket. Did I misunderstand the point he made?
Sir Chris Bryant
Yes, the hon. Member did misunderstand the point I made. Why does it not just say “face value”, instead of “FV”, which would be perfectly simple? For that matter, why should people have to click on it? The point of the Lords amendment is very clear, and it is that people should know from the very first time they see the ticket what the face value of that ticket is. I am perfectly happy, if people want to be scammed, that they should be free to be scammed, but they should at least know from the very first point at which they seek to buy a ticket what the face value of the ticket is.
Sir Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Member, although I am keen to move on.
Sir Philip Davies
I am very grateful. As the hon. Gentleman was struggling so much with the previous intervention, I thought I would intervene and give him a way out. If he gets his way, all that will happen is that all of these tickets sold on the secondary market will be sold by spivs outside the location of an event. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that consumers will be better protected by spivs selling these tickets outside the event than by their being sold on official secondary ticket markets?
Sir Chris Bryant
The secondary ticket market is the spivs: it is precisely the same set of people scamming the system and the public. They are taking advantage of people’s desire to get tickets, and thereby making the market simply not work in the interests of the creators of the art, the fans, or the stadiums and venues themselves. That is why we want to take action.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the market not working. The point that has been missed hugely by Conservative Members is that a finite number of tickets are going on sale, and this finite number is being gobbled up by the spivs, speculators and whoever online. He mentions the guys outside a venue, but they can only hold so many tickets. It is the scale of this, as I heard the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) say from a sedentary position. Without the Lords amendment that has been proposed, this is being allowed on an industrial scale. Why are the Government and the Conservative party willing to see people ripped off? It is just unbelievable.
Sir Chris Bryant
I rather agree with the idea that some Conservative Members actually want people to be ripped off, and maybe that is what we have seen for the last 14 years when we have seen taxes rise, but what we get for the taxes has diminished.
The Minister says that he wants to give more powers to the CMA to be able to enforce the action. The problem with that is that the CMA itself gave evidence that, when it tried to take Viagogo to court, it came up against inherent weaknesses in the existing consumer protection toolkit, and the Government are not adding anything to that consumer protection toolkit whatsoever. Indeed, they are deliberately voting down precisely what they said they wanted.
Sir Chris Bryant
No, the Minister will get to reply afterwards, I am sure. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] So the Minister is begging. I will give way to his begging.
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg the hon. Member’s leave, but can I draw his attention to the comments of the CMA before the Bill Committee? One witness said exactly this in response to the point he has just raised:
“We think that many of the changes in the Bill will address those weaknesses directly by giving us civil fining powers for the first time.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 7, Q3.]
It is not right to say that the CMA is getting no more ability to oversee this regime.
Sir Chris Bryant
No, because I read that completely differently from the way the Minister does. If the Minister were right, why is it only at this stage that he has chosen to bring forward amendment (a) in lieu? Precisely as with every single step of the way on ticket touting that we have seen over the last 14 years, somebody moves an amendment in the House of Lords—quite often Lord Moynihan, wonderful man that he is—and the Government are dragged kicking and screaming to introduce sensible measures that have cross-party support, but that the Government object to for some bizarre ideological reasons.
Labour will strengthen the consumer rights legislation to protect fans from fraudulent ticket practices, restricting the resale of more tickets than permissible and ensuring anybody buying a ticket from the secondary market can see—clearly, easily, readily and absolutely unambiguously —what the original price of that ticket was and where it came from. All of this could have been done today if the Government had not rejected the Lords amendment, but supported Labour on the cross-party amendment from the Lords. However, they have put touts before fans, and profits before the public.
If Labour is given the chance to form a Government, we will also go further. We will restrict the resale of tickets at more than a small set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid for it. No more touts buying a £50 ticket and selling it on for £500; no more bulk buying of seats for Taylor Swift concerts that could go to a 13-year-old fan from Wigan, but instead go to a millionaire from the US. No more scalping of our creative industries and artists, who set reasonable prices for their tickets, only to find somebody else making money off their talent and hard work by reselling them at 10 times the price. Ministers say that the CMA will enforce more, but I doubt that anything will change as a result of anything the Government are intending to do with this measure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the SNP spokesman.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, much as I wish we were not here, because we would not need to be here if the Government had done the decent, sensible thing and accepted the Lords amendment.
We have heard stories in interventions and substantive contributions, and in past debates, about the effect of an under-regulated secondary market that leaves fans paying over the odds for tickets, and places experiences beyond the financial reach of families. There is also a high risk involved that tickets purchased that way will not even grant entry to the events, and I had hoped that by this stage the Government might have read the room, understood that, and decided to respond in a meaningful manner. Let us be in no doubt: the Government amendment does little other than add the Competition and Markets Authority to the list of bodies that are able to enforce the already existing and inadequate rules on secondary ticket sales. As just about all Opposition Members can see, even if Government Members cannot, the existing rules are not working as well as they are intended to work.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the powers given to the CMA, and I wonder whether the Government can increase the ability to finance and give capacity to the CMA to deal with this sort of stuff, or is this just something that has been passed on in paper?
Richard Thomson
Perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with that question when he responds to the debate. Certainly the measure might bring a bit more resource, but it will also spread the resource for the CMA that little bit more thinly. The fact that the rules are not working as effectively as they need to has been evidenced in previous debates, when we have heard of obscure charging practices, of pressure to pay with countdown timers, and of the exorbitant end prices that often result.
The Government amendment is fine as far as it goes. It might bring a little more resource to the problem and a more strategic capability when tackling rule-breakers. I also gave two cheers when the Minister announced the promise of an inquiry at the tail end of the previous debate, but the Government are still not taking those practical measures that could be taken today with amendment 104B to clean up the marketplace for secondary ticketing.
Amendment 104B would involve measures such as a requirement to provide proof of purchase or evidence of title for the tickets for sale, which would forbid resellers from selling more tickets than they would legally have been able to purchase from the primary market. It would ensure that the face value and end price paid are clearly visible, along with the name and trading address of those doing the secondary vending. Crucially, it would also allow secondary legislation to be introduced, which could take account of and bring in anything from the inquiry that the Minister has announced, and it would compel the Secretary of State to have concluded that work within nine months. Contrary to what the Minister says, I believe that the measures in Lords amendment 104B are proportionate and add clearly to the existing Bill.
Lord amendment 104B is a bit like Lords amendment 104 which came before it. Indeed, it is almost the holy grail of amendments—it is popular, it does not cost anything, and more to the point it would be effective and do the right things in the right way for the right reasons. I do not think I am speaking out of turn when I say that hardly any Government in these isles, whether Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland or the Conservatives at UK level, are so overwhelmed with public support and good will at this time that they can afford to turn down good ideas when they are presented to them on a plate. It is therefore baffling that the Government would seek once again to steer these practical and effective measures off the road and into the ditch.
I will conclude my remarks by remarking on the “Dear Colleague” letter that was sent from the Minister yesterday, in which he expressed a clear desire to get the Bill on to the statue book without delay. Not a single Member of the House looking at the Bill in its totality would want it to be delayed, but we want it to go forward into legislation in as strong a form as it can be. That, for me, clearly means going forward in a way that can tackle the egregious abuses of people’s trust, and the reasonable expectations they have when they participate in the secondary ticketing market. Accepting the Lords amendment would allow everyone to do that, and I hope the Government will take heed of the genuine strength of view that exists on this matter, not just within this House or the other place, but outside and among the population at large, and that they will allow the Bill to progress as amended accordingly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I rise to support Lords Amendment 104B, which seeks to safeguard fans from the fraudulent abuse that is rife in the secondary ticketing market. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), I am really disappointed that the Government have repeatedly refused to accept the amendments to the Bill tabled by Lord Moynihan. In fact, for many years before that, they have failed to act as advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and her colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, supported by FanFair Alliance.
The Lords amendment includes the minimum of protection that fans deserve. It would ensure that anyone reselling a ticket has to show evidence that they have bought the ticket in the first place. As we have been hearing, that is a big issue in the secondary market, where ticket touts often list tickets that they do not own. The Lords amendment also aims to stop touts from listing more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase from the primary market.
If the Minister looks at Viagogo’s listings for BBC Radio 1 upcoming Big Weekend, he will see that touts based in Germany are selling more than 10 times as many tickets as can legally be acquired. He has said that measures to do anything about that are unenforceable, but that should not be an excuse. We cannot be standing here in this House and saying that a law that we could pass is unenforceable—it is ridiculous.
Another important measure in the Lords amendment is provision for a review to be published within nine months of the Bill passing. That is an urgent issue, and the Government must be ambitious in acting to tackle it.
I point out again to the Minister that action to crack down on ticket touting has significant support from the music industry and fans. Regulating against exploitative secondary ticketing practices is part of the manifestos put forward by music industry bodies including Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment and UK Music.
Many promoters, artist managers, venues and musicians have been highly critical of the market as it currently operates and called on the Government for urgent action to tackle the problem, but it is not just a problem for the music industry; foremost, as we have heard, it is an issue for fans. It is now commonplace for fans to miss out on tickets to sporting and cultural events only to see those same tickets on sale on a secondary ticketing site for far more money than they can afford.
With about a third of UK ticket buyers in the lowest socioeconomic bands, those inflated prices are reinforcing inequalities. The price of a ticket can make a significant difference to social and cultural inclusion, in some cases enabling marginalised or disadvantaged groups the opportunity to access events.
It is important that many venues and artists now endeavour to widen access to tickets by through-ticket pricing to certain groups, but that approach is undermined when touts use software to restrict fans’ access to the primary market and then force them on to resale sites such as Viagogo, which charge prices at the top of what consumers can bear, as we have been hearing. For example—this is disgraceful—I have been told that touts will buy up discounted tickets intended for young people, for people in wheelchairs, for carers and for others, and sell them on at the going rate on the secondary market to increase their profit margins. That has a serious impact on those consumers, who are then refused entry at the door, as well as impacting on the venue or artists that had subsidised tickets, and on the people for whom the lower priced tickets had been intended and who can no longer afford to attend the show.
I have spoken about music so far, but touting also affects other live events such as sport. Most recently, we have seen Viagogo listing up to 100 tickets for the England versus Iceland friendly at Wembley on 7 June, despite the fact that listing football tickets is illegal on unauthorised platforms—including Viagogo’s platform—for reasons of the safety of fans. When The Guardian journalist Rob Davies highlighted the listings on social media, Viagogo took down the tickets straightaway. Resale platforms should not be waiting to be caught out before complying with the law, but that is what we are seeing.
Another example of a secondary resale site having to be pushed into acting by media coverage was a recent BBC “Watchdog” report that raised concerns that some customers have not been able to receive a refund from Viagogo after being sent invalid tickets. Beth from Salisbury told the programme that she had booked a trip to Singapore to see her husband’s favourite band Coldplay as a thank you to him for his unwavering support during her cancer treatment. The two tickets to the show were bought through Viagogo for £500, but when the tickets arrived, the piece of paper said
“this is not a valid ticket”.
When she tried to get a refund, she was refused, despite the fact that Viagogo has a guarantee, apparently. In fact, it only refunded Beth’s money for the faulty ticket after the BBC “Watchdog” report. Given the weight of evidence of market dysfunction, which we have heard here and in the other place, it is disappointing that the Minister insists that the Government are already doing enough. If that is the case, why not agree to the amendment and see what comes out in the review?
Sir Philip Davies
The hon. Lady is making a good argument for what the Minister said—ensuring better enforcement of existing regulations. That seems to be the thrust of her argument, and what the Government say that they are delivering.
Barbara Keeley
It is just not happening. As we heard the last time we debated this issue a few weeks ago, just six people have been convicted of ticketing fraud—four of them in the past week. The exploitative practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and I have talked about continue to be rife on resale platforms. The Minister must accept that this derisory and dismal record must not continue. Labour has committed to a range of strong measures to crack down on ticket touts and fix this broken system for fans. Will the Government start to accept the weight of evidence and do the same?
Mrs Hodgson
I am thrilled to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who has done so much work on this matter in the past few years, especially since she took on the brief. She made an excellent speech.
Here we are again. I see that we have been joined by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies), who back in 2011 did the terrible thing—he might not think it was, but I do—of talking out my private Member’s Bill, the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill. If it had been passed, we would not be here today, because we would have already fixed this broken market well over a decade ago. I welcome him to his place—I know he likes to keep an eye on his handiwork.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
It is a great shame that the hon. Lady was not listened to 13 years ago, but I have a feeling that, unfortunately, after the Euros, with a political microscope on this issue, we will be back here an awful lot sooner than we think.
Mrs Hodgson
Sadly, if amendment 104B is not accepted today, that might be the case.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, as short as it might be. I am sure that the Minister is aware that I am here in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which has done some great work in this area. I support the Opposition’s manuscript amendment, and therefore support the revised Lords amendment 104B as it relates to the secondary ticketing market. As others have done, I thank the excellent Lord Moynihan for his continued efforts as co-chair of the all-party group to regulate black market resale sites such as Viagogo. He is right to do so, and I commend his tenacity and brilliant work over many years. I fully supported the original amendment 104, but I warmly welcome the difficult decision to reintroduce the amendment with some notable changes.
The Government’s reason for rejecting the original amendment was:
“Because protections for consumers in relation to secondary ticketing are adequately provided for under existing legislation.”
However, despite uncontrolled touting taking place on an industrial scale, with tickets resold through sites such as Viagogo, there has not been a single prosecution under the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018, no convictions for using bots under the Digital Economy Act 2017, and only two major tout prosecutions, with six individual convictions, since 2017. I can hardly see how the Government can describe current legislation as adequate.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady mentioned Lord Moynihan. For context, it should be remembered that he was a sports Minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Government. If a Thatcher Minister is anti-market—the charge made from the Conservative Benches against anyone who supports his amendment—either the world has gone topsy-turvy or the Tory party has gone so far to the right it has lost itself.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the correct point. Lord Moynihan was a highly respected Minister, and he is hardly a lefty—or whatever it is that people call people like me.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady has touched on the industrial scale of this practice, and we have heard about touts outside venues. Families may be thinking of buying tickets, and committing themselves to travelling and spending money on hotels, and that is what is wrong. If that happens again, the Government should face those families and explain why it has happened.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a very good point. As much as none of us wants to see any unhappy, devastated fans at any of these venues, we will probably have to face those images, in the emails from those fans, on our television screens and maybe on the front pages of newspapers. We have to be prepared for that, and I am sure that the Minister would be sad to see it.
If the Government are truly committed to another review, I know that Lord Moynihan—as we have heard, a highly respected Conservative Lord and a former Minister—has already been recommended to them as a possible chair. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley is agreeing with me. I hope he agrees that that would be a very fair and pragmatic selection. It is one that I would wholeheartedly support.
I will conclude. On two occasions the Lords, having listened to evidence and the stated views of the CMA, have voted through these amendments, but Ministers seem hellbent on ignoring the views of the other place. The Lords have sent a clear message to the Government, asking them to look at the facts and think again. I ask the Minister once again: will he finally side with fans, artists and athletes, support Lords amendment 104B today, and not let this be another opportunity wasted by the Conservative Government? As I said in our last debate on this matter, they should either start putting fans first, or move aside so that we can.
Kevin Hollinrake
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the points that have been raised during the debate.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) presented a cap on ticket prices as his solution to this problem, but that flies in the face of the evidence given by the CMA in its report. It said that such a measure would not significantly diminish the incentive, and the misconduct would therefore continue. However, it was good to hear the hon. Gentleman finally admit that the market is a good thing—that, coming from an Opposition Member, is a revelation.
There is a common factor between what was said by the hon. Gentleman and what was said by the other contributors to the debate. He said, for instance, that face value was not made sufficiently clear on the various secondary sites, but there is a key saying clearly what face value is on the first pages of the Viagogo and StubHub websites. All those points relate to one thing and one thing only, namely enforcement, because the requirements are there in the existing legislation. We are keen to bolster enforcement. He says that we are somehow kicking and screaming to do so with this amendment, despite the fact that this Government have unilaterally brought forward this legislation. Part 3 offers huge new powers that were not added through an amendment in the Commons or the Lords; they were on the face of the Bill from day one.
Sir Chris Bryant
The Minister knows that Taylor Swift tickets are being sold. The organisers of those concerts have said that tickets sold on unauthorised secondary ticket markets are not valid. Would he therefore encourage people to buy tickets only from authorised ticket vendors and not from those that are unauthorised, which include Viagogo?
Kevin Hollinrake
I would certainly advise any consumer to comply with the rules set out by the primary market. It is quite clear that the primary markets can do a lot more about restricting secondary sales, and we have been quoted examples of that today, including the way the Olympics was run, the way that football matches are run and the way that Glastonbury is run. All those things have very tight controls on secondary markets, which is in the gift of the primary market.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) asked about resources, as did the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). The CMA’s budget is £122 million, so we feel that it has the necessary resources available to it. The fines and penalties can be kept by the CMA for its enforcement activities.
The hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made similar points about the inappropriate resale of tickets—for England football matches, for example—and refunds that have not been processed properly. Only six people have been prosecuted for abuse in this sector, and we want to see more. Prosecutions for the use of bots have not been brought forward, and the amendment allows the CMA to do that. All the concrete action that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South calls for is about enforcement, not more regulations. I absolutely agree with that, and we want to ensure that there is more enforcement in this space.
It is of paramount importance that we get this Bill on to the statute book so that it can start delivering for businesses and consumers as soon as possible. I thank all who have helped to get to this place, including the Clerks, the officials in the Department and the Bill team. I thank them for their hard work on this legislation, and I hope that all Members will feel able to support our position.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Constitutional Law
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
I beg to move,
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 April, be approved.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order, which is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments in Scotland and upholds the 2023 fiscal framework agreement. This order will increase the Scottish Government’s cumulative capital and resource borrowing limits to reflect inflation. The order is made under sections 67 and 67A of the Scotland Act 1998, which set out the amounts that can be borrowed under section 66. We are making this order with the Treasury’s consent, as required in those sections.
Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through more than 250 orders since devolution began. The 2023 agreement set out that the annual limits for capital and resource borrowing will increase in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. The United Kingdom Government agreed, in the 2023 agreement, to amend the Scotland Act to increase these limits as necessary.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
What are the spending limits on the UK Government? Is it not the case that the UK Government have balanced their books in only 11 years since 1945, and have paid back only about 1.7% to 2% of the debt accrued, if that? It is entirely erroneous to try to put shackles on the Scottish Government and what the Minister often calls the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Scotland should be going in the same direction as any normal country, and towards independence.
John Lamont
This Conservative Government have prudently managed this country’s finances, unlike the Scottish Government, who continue to slash frontline public services across Scotland, despite a record-breaking block grant from the UK Government. Those spending choices were, of course, made by the SNP, rather than the UK Government. This order will increase the resource-borrowing limit by £29 million, from £1.75 billion to £1.78 billion, and the capital-borrowing limit by £50 million, from £3 billion to £3.05 billion. The exact figures are set out in the order we are considering. The timing of this order gives the Scottish Government certainty over the cumulative borrowing limits for the 2024-25 financial year. It is important to note, however, that the Scottish Government still remain accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland in how they choose to use these increased borrowing powers.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Is it not a fact that had the recent blood scandal happened only in Scotland, the Scottish Government would not have had the means to do anything that might be asked of them, because of all these spending restrictions and the handcuffs put on them by Westminster? Are these real-world events not another reason that the Scottish Government should not be a hostage of the UK Government, as they or any Scottish Government are under the devolved set-up?
John Lamont
The hon. Member and his hon. Friends on the nationalist Benches continue to obsess about independence, but he seems to forget that the people of Scotland had their say back in 2014 and voted in record numbers to remain part of a strong United Kingdom. I suggest that SNP Members focus on delivering for frontline services in Scotland by supporting our NHS, schools and transport networks and get on with the day job of governing Scotland, rather than talking perpetually about referendums and independence.
In summary, the order amends UK legislation to increase the cumulative borrowing limits of the Scottish Government ahead of the next financial year. In doing so, the UK Government uphold their commitment to the 2023 agreement and deliver for the people of Scotland. It is positive to see both Governments working together. On that note, I commend the order to the House.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The fact that we are considering this statutory instrument on the Floor of the House, when such instruments are normally done in Committee, demonstrates that the Government have absolutely nothing left to bring to the Chamber. In fact, this debate was scheduled for a Committee Room upstairs but was subsequently cancelled and brought to the Floor of the House. It shows that the Government are desperate to try to fill time in this Chamber rather than send us all away early again. I know I speak for the Opposition and millions of people up and down the country when I say that this nonsense has to end: a general election must be called soon on this zombie Government. They may be able to run for now, but they certainly cannot hide. The people are fed up of 14 years of complete failure.
We are here to consider increased borrowing limits for the Scottish Government. I wonder whether the Minister could answer a few questions. As per the August 2023 fiscal framework agreement, which came two years late, can the Minister tell the House how the increase amounts have been calculated?
Secondly, the fiscal framework allows for £3 billion, and slightly more given this order of debt for capital purposes at £450 million a year. How much of that just over £3 billion has been drawn down to this stage?
Thirdly, the resource-borrowing powers can be drawn down by up to £600 million per annum up to a maximum of just over £1.75 billion. How much of that has been drawn down? The reason I ask that latter question is that at the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the Scottish Parliament this morning, the permanent secretary warned the First Minister that there is a looming £1.9 billion fiscal deficit in the Scottish Government, because of spending promises that have been made by the current Scottish Government, and that the First Minister will have to come to Parliament regarding the redrawing of those priorities to try to reduce that £1.9 billion fiscal deficit.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that, notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal framework has brought the two Governments to the table, the problems we are seeing with spending and the constant arguments are not in the best interests of the people of Scotland? What they really need is two Governments who work more closely together and in concert for Scotland.
Ian Murray
I could not agree more. If the Prime Minister wishes to go and see His Majesty the King at some point soon, we might get at least one half of those two Governments working together after the general election.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
What do he and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) have against the Republic of Ireland? It has one Government, which is doing very well and has a budget surplus, unlike the UK that has the mishmash and a mess, with a Scotland underperforming in the UK and looking at an Ireland that is overperforming having left the UK. There are lessons to be learned for himself and other colleagues.
Ian Murray
There are certainly lessons to be learned for the UK: not to have a Tory Government. If we had a Labour Government, things would be in a much better position. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be encouraging all his constituents to vote Labour at the general election in order to make that change.
My fourth question to the Minister is that the fiscal framework of August 2023 suggests that these figures will be increased by inflation from 2024-25 onwards. Will the Minister confirm that is correct? What inflationary measure will be used to do that? Every household in Scotland, and up and down the UK, knows the impact the current Government have had on borrowing overall. Crashing the economy and trebling the national debt has had consequences for everyone. The interest payments on Government debt alone as a share of the economy are now the highest since in early 1950s.
Thanks to the former Prime Minister’s disastrous premiership, interest rates that homeowners are now paying have gone through the roof, taking away home ownership for many in this country. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis that was made in Downing Street but is being paid for by working people all over the country. If it is possible to sum up this dreadful Government in one individual’s actions and behaviours, it is the crashing of the economy, accompanied by the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years, and the largest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s. They are reckless, incompetent and unapologetic for the chaos they have wrought across the country.
But the Government seem to want to go further. They have looked at the former Prime Minister’s chaos inflicted on the country by the £45 billion unfunded tax cuts for the richest, and decided to trump that with a £46 billion unfunded tax cut to scrap national insurance, but will not tell us how they will pay for it. [Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Treasury Bench. Instead of chuntering, perhaps they will tell us how they will pay for that £46 billion unfunded commitment. When the Minister responds, will he take the opportunity of this rare occasion of a Scottish statutory instrument being discussed on the Floor of the House to answer my fifth question, about where the money for the £46 billion unfunded commitment will come from?
We have had three failed Prime Ministers in the UK over as many years, an embarrassing statistic the SNP could not help but match, with three First Ministers in Scotland in as many years. They have brought back former leaders to take charge, although the party in government in this Parliament have not done that for the top job, or certainly not for now anyway. Scotland is governed by a man who is responsible for many of the problems we face in the first place—he will have to take charge of these borrowing requirements—the Education Secretary who wrecked our education system, the Finance Secretary who decimated local government finance and the leader who led them to their worst ever election result.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s jousting, although I suspect he will have to wait quite a while before he gets to do it again for real in the general election, but will he be supporting that statutory instrument today?
Ian Murray
Yes, we will be supporting the statutory instrument, but it is worth putting it into the context of where these borrowing powers will have to be spent and the requirements of that. I know the hon. Gentleman would hardly wish to defend the Scottish Government’s record on spending; Members on the Opposition Benches certainly will not do that. What is happening in Scotland because of having two bad Governments needs to be completely exposed—[Interruption.] Oh, SNP Members are awake.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman was making us nod off.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As we look towards a general election and the almost certain prospect of a Labour Government, with Labour Members switching places with those now on the Government Benches, would the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) be prepared to commit a Labour Government to restoring the Scottish block grant?
Ian Murray
I would commit the Labour Government to the fiscal framework agreement that has already been put in place. It was negotiated and agreed in August 2023, and lays out the fiscal framework for the years ahead. When Labour Members move from the Opposition to the Government Benches come the general election, I am not sure if the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) will be still be in his place. We have had 14 years of Conservative failure in this place and 17 years of SNP failure in Scotland too. That is the context in which these orders come forward. There is an enormous black hole in Scotland’s public finances, while one in six Scots are on NHS waiting lists. Real earnings in Scotland today are lower than they were in 2007. The only response to this crisis from either Government has been to increase taxes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Member agrees with his shadow Health Secretary who said at the weekend that, right across the UK, every part of the NHS is in crisis. All roads lead back to Westminster, because, even though this is a devolved matter, decisions taken in Westminster have an impact on the NHS across the whole country.
Ian Murray
The conclusion is that all roads must lead to a Labour Government to resolve the issue. That is where we end up.
The only response to this crisis from either Government has been to increase taxes. [Interruption.] Those on the Treasury Bench are still chuntering. I wonder whether they can still chunter about where the £46 billion unfunded spending commitments are going to come from. Those on the Treasury Bench have presided over the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years, and the SNP went even further, with any Scot earning over £28,500 a year paying more tax than anywhere else in the UK—that is nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and council workers all paying for their Government’s incompetence.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman earlier mentioned the previous Prime Minister and the high interest rates in the sterling zone. Will he apologise for buddying up with the Tories in 2014, wearing his Union Jack jacket, saying that Scotland should stick with the Tory Government, stick with the risk of a Prime Minister doing what she did, and stick with the risk of a currency zone that has hammered people’s mortgages and hammered people’s standards of living. He can apologise from the Dispatch Box if he wants.
Ian Murray
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so looking forward to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward yet another financial perspective to what independence would look like, but it would absolutely trash our economy and make what is currently going on look like a picnic in the park. He cannot answer any of the basic questions about how that would work.
At the same time as hammering working people in Scotland with tax increases, the SNP has U-turned on its U-turn and, again, will not take any more money from the oil and gas giants’ excess profits, but will, instead, take more money from our nurses in income tax. Working people are paying the price and getting less. The truth is that this motion today is not what the people of Scotland and the UK are calling out for; they are speaking with clarity that they want change—change from a cruel and failing Conservative Government and change from a tired and failing SNP Administration. They want change. Let us get this general election and deliver that change.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I must start by reflecting how glad I am to see that this topic has captivated the imagination of the House with the participation here today.
Let me start by agreeing with the shadow Secretary of State on one point: if anything reflects the zombie nature of this Parliament, it is the fact that we are spending 90 minutes on the Floor of the House discussing something that usually would be decided by 12 people in the attic and, at best, go to a deferred Division.
Clearly, the Government are very thin when it comes to stuff to put before the House, but given that this measure is here, I am happy to debate it. Let me also say that there has been suggestion that there is nothing to see here—that all that is happening is a statutory instrument to give effect to an agreement that has been reached between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is not quite the case, though, is it? Of course, officials in both Governments have worked out agreements on how things should be calculated—how inflation and various other factors should be determined—and it is good to see that officials in both Governments are singing from a common hymn sheet when it gets to analysing the situation before them. But that is not to pretend that the quantum of money involved is the subject of consensus or agreement.
I would have thought that even Scottish Ministers would be a little concerned to suggest that this is an inflation-related increase in borrowing limits. The increase is 1.6% over seven years, for money that mainly goes to the construction industry where we have been looking at 40% or 50% inflation over the same period. I do not even know how they can keep a straight face in describing this as an inflation-rated increase.
The truth is that these borrowing limits are not a matter of negotiation between the Scottish and UK Governments. They are not subject to a legislative consent motion; they are something that is determined by the UK Treasury, and that is the statutory position. This UK Treasury has determined what the figures are, and, to be frank, it has the Scottish Government over a barrel because the only option is to agree to this proposed increase, or to get no increase at all. The Government have us over the same barrel, because we either agree to this 1.6% increase, or the status quo ante will prevail and there will be no increase at all.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about the shadow Health Secretary pointing out that all roads lead to Westminster, and that the spending constraints and austerity that have been chosen were foisted upon everybody, it is a ridiculous situation, surely, when Scotland’s hands are tied like no other country in Europe. Spain does not decide its priorities for health spending based on what France is spending, so why should Scotland or Wales do similarly? Why also do the Barnett consequentials stem from only one of the nations of the UK? Wales probably has the greatest health needs, but we do not see money for England as a consequence of Welsh needs or Scottish needs. Why does it all stem from the one part? That is something those of the Tory-Labour “Better Together” agenda have never addressed: the imbalance of the UK, with one partner in the lead and the rest having to follow with the choices they make for us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That intervention was longer than many speeches I have given here.
Tommy Sheppard
I think I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. To come back to the discussion on capital borrowing requirements, the other important point that must surely be made, which reflects what he says about who is responsible, is that there is context. That context is a 16% cut—16.1%, to be exact—in the block grant available for capital funding of public services in Scotland. That is not my figure; it was provided by the House of Commons Library in an analysis done on figures provided by the Treasury. That is the real-terms cut that central Government are making, and it means that the borrowing limits available to the Scottish Government have then to be used to compensate for those cuts and to mitigate their effects.
There has been discussion about how these borrowing limits came about as a result of the Smith commission proposals, but this order is in direct contravention of the spirit of the Smith commission. The proposal from the Smith commission was not that UK capital spending that takes place in Scotland should be devolved to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government should take control of it. That was not the proposal; I might have considered that and supported that, as somebody who supported full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government at the time, but that was not what we were discussing.
The proposal that came from the Smith commission was for a supplemental capacity for the Scottish Government to borrow additional moneys to fund particular projects and public services in Scotland if they had a mandate to do so. It was not meant to compensate for core capital funding. Therefore, as the Scottish Government are now being forced to do that, the cost of UK capital spending in Scotland is being incrementally transferred from the UK Exchequer to the Scottish Government. That, my friends, is a Union dividend in reverse. That is a Union penalty. That is the price we are having to pay for being part of these arrangements.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points on the impact of the budget cuts to capital funding. Does he appreciate that for constituents of ours there are direct consequences of that, combined with the inflation we have seen? The rebuilding of the quay wall at Windmillcroft Quay in my constituency is now facing real problems, because the shortfall in the project budget is in the region of £25 million as a result of the inflation in construction and other things. When the capital grant gets cut, there is no way of making that up.
Tommy Sheppard
I agree with that. I was just coming on to talk about the impact of these cuts and the fact that, even with increased borrowing by the Scottish Government, we are still talking in overall terms about a 9% reduction in the capital budget in Scotland. A 9% reduction means that some big projects are going to be delayed and some are going to be shelved. People who are looking for a new building or a new piece of infrastructure in their constituency should understand, when they are told delays are going to take place, that those are a consequence of what we are deciding here.
Of course, not all capital spending is to do with big, grandiose projects; a lot of capital spending is focused on improving the day-to-day operational delivery of public services, and therefore the consequences of cuts and delays will have an impact on revenue budgets as well. If we cannot improve the energy efficiency of a particular building through capital improvements, it will cost more to run that building. If we have to provide temporary facilities, that will cost more.
There is a double whammy. Not only is the capital budget having to be funded in part by a charge on the revenue budget to Scottish taxpayers, because of the borrowing the Scottish Government undertake, but the revenue consequences elsewhere in operational budgets will put them under considerable additional strain.
Tommy Sheppard
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I am just about to—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point on capital spending. The Scottish Government and a small Scottish island cannot build a replacement hospital at the moment because of those capital constraints. Meanwhile, independent Ireland has so much money from its surplus that it is funding nurses and Erasmus students not just in its own territory, but in Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the UK.
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed.
This is the final point that I want to make. Let us remember that when we talk about Scottish Government borrowing—the entire thing that we are talking about here—it is borrowing with the permission of, and guaranteed by, the UK Treasury. It is not possible for the Scottish Government to do a deal with a private sector house builder and get some private finance to build more social housing as an additional project in Scotland. That is not possible unless it is agreed to by the UK Treasury and comes within these limits, so the Scottish Government, who are heralded as the most powerful devolved regional Government in the world, do not have the financial capital powers that even a medium-sized business has to manage its own affairs.
That is why, in the end, the argument should really be for a Government in Scotland who have the capacity to make decisions about capital spending and other aspects of our finances based upon the needs and requirements of the people of Scotland, rather than the needs and requirements of mandarins in the Treasury in Whitehall. That is why we should have independence for Scotland.
John Lamont
I am grateful to hon. Members for their important contributions to the debate. A number of Members expressed surprise that we are having this debate. I am surprised by their shyness and reluctance to come to the mother of Parliaments to debate this important matter. We are here on behalf of our constituents to talk about how additional resource will be allocated to people in Scotland. We should all welcome that rather than being slightly uncertain about it. I am certainly relishing the opportunity to talk from the Dispatch Box about the additional resource that the people of Scotland, including those in my constituency, will get.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister is talking about additional resource, but he cannot deny that there has been massive inflation in construction costs as a result of Brexit, covid and his previous Prime Minister. In that spirit, will he address the problems that have been caused by his Government, and will he commit to the extra £25 million needed for Windmillcroft Quay, the Citizens Theatre and the Govanhill baths in Glasgow, which have all seen huge inflation in construction costs?
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, and I will come to some of the allegations made about Scotland’s budget shortly.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South made a number—[Hon. Members: “Edinburgh South!”] My apologies. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made a number of points about how annual limits are calculated. Annual limits are calculated in accordance with the 2023 agreement and are based on the OBR’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. I can confirm that the GDP deflator used to calculate the new limits for this order was 1.677%.
Let me respond to the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South. Some £1.76 billion of the national loans fund long-term loan remains outstanding and counts against the £3 billion statutory limit, including the £300 million borrowed in March 2024. I will write to him on his other points. He made a general point about the levels of Government debt, but we should not forget that the reason we have such significant debt is the huge interventions that the Government made to support jobs and communities during the pandemic. Had we not made those interventions to support jobs, including in the hon. Member’s constituency of Edinburgh South, many people would be out of work and many more businesses would have struggled to survive the pandemic. If he and Labour Members are now saying they were opposed to those interventions, I think our constituents would want an explanation of why they would not want a Government to make those types of interventions to help during a pandemic. From my experience of my own constituency, I know that the furlough scheme, for example, and the huge amount of additional support that went in to support businesses were very much welcomed, but Labour Members now seem to be opposed to those things.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) suggested that this agreement has in some way been imposed on the Scottish Government. That is just not the case: it is a great example of both Governments working together, both at an official level and at a ministerial level. Again, the two Governments in Scotland working collaboratively to deliver for the betterment of our country is something that all of our constituents would expect to see, and would very much welcome.
Tommy Sheppard
All I am trying to establish is whether the UK Government are telling us that the quantum of these borrowing limits is to be agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, or whether in law, that figure is determined by the UK Treasury. Which is it?
John Lamont
I could not be clearer that this is an example of both Governments working together to agree what is in the best interests of Scotland. It is now for the Scottish Government to decide how they use those additional spending and borrowing powers.
A number of hon. Members have suggested, both in speeches and in interventions, that the UK Government have in some way cut the capital budget for Scotland. The SNP has cut its own budgets by wasting so much taxpayers’ money on failed projects in Scotland. [Interruption.] Hon. Members scoff from a sedentary position, but the SNP spent more on trying and failing to build two ferries than it claims it would cost to set up a whole new state when it is proposing an independent Scotland. They have also suggested that the UK Government have cut Scotland’s overall budget, but Scotland’s block grant is at a record high. However, the SNP Scottish Government have hugely cut local government funding, which is impacting frontline services the length and breadth of Scotland—that is the cut that SNP Members should be talking about. A spokesman for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that the SNP’s last budget was
“not a good budget for Scottish local government”.
I could happily put SNP Members in touch with that spokesperson, but I suspect that they are already in touch with that person, given that those were the words of an SNP councillor. Even their own side are complaining about the level of funding that the SNP is giving to local councils across Scotland.
To conclude, this order demonstrates the continued commitment of this United Kingdom Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland and maintain a functioning settlement for Scotland. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 April, be approved.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Mark Harper relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 3) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3)
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) as listed on the Order Paper. I will call the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South to move his amendments formally at the end of the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I beg to move,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:
(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—
(a) leaving out provision relating to a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire,
(b) leaving out provision relating to a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, and
(c) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it—
(a) relates to whether or not there should be—
(i) a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire, or
(ii) a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, or
(b) otherwise relates to a railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).
(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph (4); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,
(b) in relation to the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) as set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and
(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).
(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.
(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
That the Order of 20 June 2022 (High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)) be rescinded.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Amendment (a), in paragraph (1)(a), line 2, leave out from “vicinity of” to end and insert—
“Chainage 281+350 in the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire, including all structures relating to a junction with the now cancelled Phase 2b railway between this point and a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe,”.
Amendment (b), after paragraph (1)(b) insert—
“() leaving out provision for the Ashley Infrastructure Maintenance Base - Rail, and”.
Amendment (c), in paragraph (1)(c), line 2, leave out “and (b)” and insert “, (b) and ()”.
Amendment (d), in paragraph (4)(a), line 1, leave out “high speed”.
Huw Merriman
The motion instructs the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee to resume its work of scrutinising the Bill. To put it simply, the Bill was always going to cover the 15 miles that form the key backbone of Northern Powerhouse Rail, and the motion asks the Committee to continue its work of scrutinising the Bill to deliver this first section of the Liverpool to Manchester railway—the 15-mile section between Manchester Piccadilly station and the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire.
The motion also requests that the Committee remove the sections of railway south of Millington, which were only required to deliver the now cancelled elements of High Speed 2. Members and constituents who have expressed concerns about the impact of this 15-mile stretch of railway on their property and livelihoods will be able to have their petitions heard. It is therefore crucial that the Select Committee continues its work.
Turning to the detail, on 4 October 2023 the Government announced Network North, a transformative transport infrastructure plan that will see £36 billion invested in hundreds of transport projects across the country. Every region is set to receive the same or more transport investment as they would have under previous plans in transport projects—projects that matter the most to communities up and down the country. At the same time, the Government confirmed an additional £12 billion of investment to enable Northern Powerhouse Rail to proceed to better connect Liverpool and Manchester.
The change before the House is a crucial part of the Government’s Network North strategy, allowing us to invest the money put aside for HS2 in projects that will transform transport within the region. Specifically on Northern Powerhouse Rail, this allows us to deliver it in full, bringing in Bradford and Hull. Network North will radically improve travel between and within our cities and towns and around the local areas, benefiting more people, in more places and more quickly than in previous plans.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Select Committee for their hard work up to this point. It is no small task that has been put before them, and they have all worked with a vigour that is to be admired, even if some of the work had to be paused while the Government refocused this agenda.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As is well known, I have been opposed to the HS2 project since its inception, which goes back about 10 years or so. The Minister is giving us a bit of a eulogy about what is being done, and I am very glad that HS2 has been substantially changed and will not go beyond Birmingham. The question I put to the Minister is this: is an instruction the right way to go? Doing so in effect bypasses the Standing Orders, and it puts my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) in an invidious position, to say the very least. I will come on to that later, if I may, but will he answer my question, please?
Huw Merriman
I had not really started the eulogy yet, but I do believe this is the right vehicle. The Select Committee on the Bill had already been set up, and it was set up to look at not just HS2 phase 2b, but Northern Powerhouse Rail. It was always on that basis that it was formed, so it makes sense to repurpose the Committee to allow it to continue to work on the one aspect that continues, and to take out the other aspects of HS2 phase 2b, which of course is no longer continuing.
I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has been a diligent, conscientious and highly effective Committee Chair over the past year and a half. I know he will be looking forward to getting back to the task, as will the other Committee members.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises an important point in saying that we should repurpose the Committee. However, the amount of spend for Northern Powerhouse Rail is potentially quite different from what was agreed before, and he is almost depriving the House of the ability to have a proper view of it and to decide how much money is spent on the project.
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend obviously believes the point he makes, but almost two years ago—I think it was back in June 2022—after Second Reading, this House passed the motion that has allowed the Select Committee to sit, and its remit was to look at phase 2b and also Northern Powerhouse Rail. By definition, we are looking to strip out the elements that are no longer relevant because HS2 phase 2b is not going ahead, but in my view the Committee should continue to sit to consider the parts that are still going ahead.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. There is potentially a significant difference in cost, and in terms of the impact on communities. By taking this process and railroading it through—excuse the pun—the Minister is not giving the House a proper opportunity to discuss the detail and make a decision on it, unless he accepts that there will be no difference in cost between the two proposals.
Huw Merriman
The route selected as the preferred route, which the Bill Committee was tasked with hearing petitions on, remains exactly the same route as was previously identified. With respect, I contend that the Committee has already started its journey. It has already received petitions from those who feel they are affected by this issue, and I contend that that is the right vehicle. I have said warm words about the Committee’s Chair, and as I see the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) in his place, I also put on the record my thanks for his hard and heroic work.
Sir William Cash
The question the Minister referred to is one of additional provisions. The real question—this is a technical question and not good for an intervention—and the bottom line is that additional provisions can be petitioned against. The manner in which the motion is constructed will effectively greatly inhibit, and/or completely prevent, additional provisions from being pursued by petitioners, both in the constituency affected by the Bill, and also for my constituents, who are affected by the fact that the two sections, from Birmingham to Crewe and from Crewe to Manchester, are interconnected. There is a vast amount of concern in my constituency about this issue.
Huw Merriman
To be clear, I give a commitment that HS2 will not be going through my hon. Friend’s constituency, and therefore any petitions that were going to be relevant should lapse. This is a matter for the Bill Committee, but that would be the logical extension. Any petitions already made on this 15-mile stretch, which will continue to be within the remit because it continues to be the preferred route, will be heard by the Committee if this motion is passed. If there are amendments, such as from an environmental statement or any that I may propose, that reopens the window for petitions. On that basis, if there is anything new a petition can be made, but if there is not, the petition should already be in. I feel that is the right outcome.
I shall make some more progress. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made clear on Second Reading, and as I have mentioned, part of the Bill’s original purpose was always to deliver this section of Northern Powerhouse Rail, the first half of the line between Manchester and Liverpool. Following today’s motion, the Committee will be able to go back to considering petitions from people and organisations still affected by the scheme. The Committee will also assess any changes to the Bill that I may bring forward to adapt it to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The proposed changes to the Bill will, quite rightly, prompt a new environmental assessment that will consider how any new element in the scheme will affect local areas. Where possible, I will use this as an opportunity to further reduce the construction impacts on communities, and the changes will be provided to the House in the usual way. Although this is a rather technical motion, holding this debate demonstrates good progress in developing the Government’s long-held ambition to improve connectivity between Liverpool and Manchester.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House when Northern Powerhouse Rail will be complete?
Huw Merriman
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact and firm date, but I am seeking to put the Bill Committee back on track, rather than restart the entire process—something that has been championed and supported by the Mayors of Manchester and Liverpool, and others. By its very definition we will be looking to deliver the Bill back, so that we can crack on and give the hon. Gentleman an earlier date than he may perhaps believe will be the case.
Since the Network North announcement, we have been engaging local leaders and MPs about the form the connection between Liverpool and Manchester will take, and we have held many discussions with local leaders to establish what their communities want from such a link. Alongside that, we must ensure that the options being considered represent the best possible use of the £12 billion funding available. On 25 March I was able to deposit a written statement in this place on the outcome of those discussions. We have heard clear support for a railway with stops at Liverpool, Warrington Bank Quay, Manchester airport and Manchester Piccadilly. Local leaders also supported the plan that the new railway should follow the broad alignment set out in the 2021 integrated rail plan.
The section of railway that we are discussing today is part of the plan’s larger Northern Powerhouse Rail network. We will improve connections on both sides of the Pennines, both by building new lines and by upgrading existing ones. Trains on this line will go past Manchester and on to York via Leeds. We will also upgrade the existing railway between Leeds and Bradford to reduce journey times and increase capacity between those destinations. Stations will also be upgraded and made more accessible. The environmental impact of the network will be reduced by further electrification.
With this plan, towns and cities across the whole of the north will benefit from direct services to Manchester airport. Passengers travelling to the airport from Liverpool could see their journeys slashed by almost an hour, while passengers from Leeds could benefit from a 41-minute reduction. The new station at Manchester airport will unlock the potential to further promote the international airport, acting as a catalyst for growth across the north-west.
That is just one of the benefits that Network North—our new long-term plan for transport—will deliver. We are refocusing on the journeys that really matter to people, connecting towns, cities and rural communities in all regions of the country. Every penny of the £19.8 billion committed to the northern leg of HS2 will be reinvested in the north. Every penny of the £9.6 billion committed to the midlands leg will be reinvested in the midlands. Bradford will get a brand-new station and connection, reducing journey times from Manchester from 56 minutes to 30 minutes.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister knows, the commitment for Birmingham to Manchester was in three Conservative manifestos. What he is now announcing is controversial and breaks with the tradition of cross-party agreement that we have seen up to now. The offering in terms of east-west connectivity is laudable, but the fact that we cannot get a direct link and increased capacity—it is not just about speed—from Birmingham through to Manchester will affect the whole of the north-west and stop much of the wealth in the south from getting further north because of decreased business activity.
Huw Merriman
I take the hon. Member’s point. It comes down to choices, and the choice as led by the Prime Minister was to cancel the stages of HS2 north of Handsacre and dedicate those moneys to other parts of the north and midlands in particular to connect those cities, which would not have seen a direct benefit from HS2.
As an example, let us take Bradford, a city that felt sore that it had missed out from the integrated rail plan. That decision provides £2 billion for a new station for Bradford. The concern that Bradford would have had was that, as things had stood, it may have seen businesses relocate away to, say, Manchester, because not only was it not receiving anything, but Manchester was receiving a lot. Ultimately, it comes down to choices.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick
I take the point that the Minister is making—it is an improvement for Bradford—but HS2 would also have gone on another spur up from Birmingham to Leeds. Improving connectivity between Leeds and Bradford, which is not far, plus the station improvements, would have been far more beneficial than what he is proposing.
Huw Merriman
We have committed to delivering a faster route between Leeds and Bradford that will bring the journey time down to 13 minutes; that commitment is there. Look, it comes down to choices, and we have been quite clear with our choice, which is to repurpose the moneys from HS2. I believe that Labour’s position is to do likewise, because the Leader of the Opposition went to Manchester and made the same point that the line would not be recommitted. The key point is this: is the Labour party committed to repurposing for those Bradford projects? I am sure that we will hear from its Front Bench spokesperson.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Huw Merriman
I will not give way again; I will finish so that others can speak.
We will be upgrading the connections between Manchester and Sheffield, between Leeds and Sheffield, between Leeds and Hull, and between Hull and Sheffield. We will reopen several of the lines closed more than 60 years ago by Dr Beeching, reconnecting areas such as County Durham, Burton, Stocksbridge and Waverley. We will halve the time that it takes to travel between Nottingham and Leeds by upgrading the track between Newark and Nottingham. We will increase our investment in the midlands rail hub to £1.75 billion, better connecting more than 50 stations, and we will improve journey times from north Wales to England, bringing parts of north Wales within an hour of Manchester by electrifying the north Wales main line. Network North is vital to our plans to level up the economy. It will connect labour markets across the north, expanding where people can work and where companies can recruit from. It will make it easier to deliver goods to markets and shorten supply chains in regions, growing the local economy. Instead of dragging investment towards London, we will contribute towards growth everywhere in the country.
As I said, although the motion is technical, this is still an exciting day for the north. We are taking a step towards providing the kind of infrastructure that people really want, connecting the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool, and making it easier to move around, work and invest in the region. I commend the motion to the House.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for outlining the detail of this motion. I thank all members of the Select Committee for their work to date on the Bill, and all hon. Members who are contributing to this debate.
Labour will back this motion because after years of delay by this Government, we back progress on finally delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail—even the limited progress that this motion appears to bring. I say “finally” because the Government first promised Northern Powerhouse Rail over a decade ago. It has been in three consecutive Conservative manifestos yet has not been delivered. Plans have been continuously chopped, changed and scaled back.
The impact of that dither and delay is becoming painfully clear. Just last week, the Government’s own infrastructure adviser, Sir John Armitt, warned that the Conservatives’ failure to boost rail capacity in the north risks undermining levelling up and constraining economic growth. Sir John pointed out that the UK is the only country in Europe where productivity is below the national average in the second and third biggest cities. What a damning indictment, after 14 years of Conservative chaos.
After more than a decade of stagnation, the window is closing in which to deliver the transport infrastructure that our country needs to make people’s lives better, boost growth and reach net zero. Because of the fiasco that the Government have made of the now staggeringly expensive High Speed 2 project, poor connectivity, high congestion and low capacity will continue to hold back the midlands and the north. It is therefore vital that today’s motion does not unintentionally restrict any future plans to address rail capacity between Birmingham and Manchester.
As we know, under the sponsorship of the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the former Mayor of the West Midlands, work has started with private partners to find a new solution to the capacity issue between Birmingham and Manchester caused by this Government’s mishandling of HS2. However, the detailed final plans have not yet been presented to the Government, and no public decision has been made by Ministers on whether to support the findings. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that today’s motion will not result in the proposals from that review being hampered or prejudged, or bind the hands of the working group before the consortium makes its full recommendations.
As we know, the Government did not consult local leaders or experts when they cooked up their error-ridden Network North plan. The shambles that we have seen play out since is an inevitable result. It is vital that Ministers learn from these glaring mistakes and do not fall into the same trap again. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that today’s motion is no substitute for a serious, detailed delivery plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail, or the credible and transformative programme of transport infrastructure investment that the north and midlands need and deserve.
The Government’s current approach of developing small sections of projects that are ignorant of each other is neither coherent nor sufficient. As a result, it remains unclear how the Government plan to achieve their supposed objective of levelling up all parts of the north. As stated, after years of delays, it is vital that we finally begin to make progress on Northern Powerhouse Rail, no matter how limited that progress might be, which is why we will support the motion today.
Let me emphasise again that the progress must be made in partnership with local leaders, and that piecemeal announcements should not be seen as a substitute for a credible plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is desperately needed if we are to deliver for the north. I hope that the Minister has taken those comments on board. I look forward to hearing his response to my points and those raised by others in the debate.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I must say that the motion before the House is quite bizarre. Now that the hybrid HS2 Bill has been adapted to supposedly deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, we are asking the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to agree a Bill for a railway that ends in a field, with no connection to the rest of the rail network. This is effectively a railway to nowhere. The motion and the adaption of the hybrid Bill will not facilitate a functioning railway until a connection is established to the rail network at Latchford in Warrington. The Department for Transport is presuming that the remainder of the line will be approved through a completely separate planning process, but does not say what that process is and when it will be brought forward. That is a massive departure from what was experienced in phase 1 or even phase 2, in which a whole corridor approach was considered, with clear connections possible, in each phase, to the existing network. It is totally flawed to segment NPR in the way proposed, rather than looking at the whole corridor, or even a whole phase or section. The proposal does not even properly consider what could be thought of as the NPR core route. The House should not be asked to approve something that will not deliver a functioning piece of infrastructure.
Sir William Cash
The instruction states:
“The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—”
and then sets out certain arrangements relating to certain aspects of the railway. It then states:
“making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of”
the previous sub-paragraphs. The words “as it thinks fit” are an absolute carte blanche. If the railway ends in a field, it is not a railway. That is just the starting point. Have the examiners been asked to look at the Bill using the procedures for a hybrid Bill? Effectively, it will not be a Bill, when it has been treated in this way, if the instruction goes through. Should we not put forward petitions, irrespective of the constraints imposed by the instruction, to test just how much this is a matter of principle? The Bill is also constrained by the fact that Second Reading is now effectively torn up, and a new principle is being inserted into the Bill.
Jack Brereton
I thank my hon. Friend for those very thoughtful points. I entirely agree that the instruction is wide-ranging. It is concerning to see those sorts of powers being put forward to the Committee. It really does show the abuse of the hybrid Bill process. If any services are to use the line, the railway would have to secure much wider enhancements and additional complex infrastructure, and there is no guarantee of that being delivered. As I said, the delivery of any services on this line will depend on permission being secured for the rest of the section, and that will be approved under a completely separate planning process. The approach being taken really is totally back to front.
Graham Stringer
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a principled disagreement with him on HS2, but I respect his position. He is making a powerful case for dividing the House on this matter. Will he divide the House on it?
Jack Brereton
We may come to that shortly, but I am very concerned about this. Certainly, we may consider dividing on the motion.
We should focus first on properly understanding the connectivity enhancement need, and then design the infrastructure to meet that need. Instead, we already have the infrastructure design, and are trying to make it fit with the improvements that we would like for connectivity across the north, because we do not want to spend time doing this properly and restarting the hybrid Bill process. It might have made sense to use the proposed route when the track would be shared with HS2, but it does not make any sense now that phase 2 has gone. It is neither the optimal route for benefits nor the most cost-effective to deliver. I am afraid that this really is an abuse of the hybrid Bill process.
Sir William Cash
May I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 3 of the motion? It states:
“The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on…Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph (4); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.”
What the motion is actually saying, surely, is that the principle of the Bill as originally passed will now be replaced by a new principle, and that any petitioner or anyone else who gets up to speak about it in any context will be told, because of an instruction by the whole House on what I could describe as the misleading basis—I am not accusing the Minister of this; I am merely commenting on the wording of the motion—that the issue cannot be put, and indeed is not to be regarded as an issue. That is a contradiction of what is clearly going on.
Jack Brereton
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. That, too, illustrates the failings of the hybrid Bill process. My hon. Friend and I know about this all too well because of the abuses of the process that we have seen in Staffordshire, which really have not guarded against some of the issues and challenges to which people have been drawing attention. It brings into question the fitness of the process in its entirety, and the way in which hybrid Bills have been enacted.
This Bill was designed and set out to deliver phase 2b of HS2. It was never about NPR alone, so its original objectives were very different. To try to adapt the Bill in this way is totally flawed. It would not afford the due process that is required for the decision in question. I believe we should abandon this phase 2b Bill, and come back with a new hybrid Bill that will deliver NPR properly. We should look at the whole corridor between Liverpool and Manchester, and at areas beyond, not just at the section in the middle, which does not go anywhere. We need a Bill that is capable of delivering the whole project. We cannot just deliver a partial scheme, and expect it to magically result in capacity being released to enable the promised enhancement of services.
There are constraints along the whole route. What about the complexities of crossing the M56, the M6 and the Manchester ship canal to connect with the rail network at Latchford, east of Warrington Bank Quay? What about the enhancements that will be needed between Warrington and Liverpool, including the upgrading of the Fiddlers Ferry line to facilitate services, and what about the capacity improvements that are needed at Liverpool Lime Street station? All these issues need far more detailed consideration and focus, as well as a proper process for approval—and we have not even mentioned how all this will be delivered within a tight £12 billion budget envelope; it is more likely to cost more than £16 billion. As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) about connecting with the west coast main line, I am afraid that that will not be possible because of the challenges presented in the Warrington area; the Arpley chord cannot provide a connection with the west coast main line to serve west coast stations north of Warrington.
One might ask why we in Staffordshire are so interested in these matters. It is because we fear those who are seeking to reignite phase 2 of HS2 and all the horrors that it was set to wreak on our fine county. People in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have overwhelmingly welcomed the Prime Minister’s courageous and correct decision to scrap phase 2. They want the £36 billion released to be spent on projects that will truly deliver the improvements in local transport that will help to transform their lives, and not on remote “white elephant” pet projects.
It is disappointing that the eagerness to progress the plans set out in the motion has not been mirrored in the actions to wind down site compounds, fill in the thousands of boreholes that have been left, and return land to its rightful owners across the rest of the phase 2 route. Little to no progress seems to have been made yet, and the significant costs continue to spiral, even though the project has been cancelled. People in Staffordshire communities such as Swynnerton and Yarnfield, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), are still fearful, given that they have not yet seen any visible signs of unwinding. Motions like the one before us today do nothing to dispel those fears, and there are concerns that some people would like nothing better than to see phase 2 restarted. That is why I have tabled several probing amendments, because we need to know that all elements relating purely to phase 2 will be removed.
Amendment (a) would leave out the provisions relating to the entirety of phase 2b from the junction with phase 2a at Crewe to where it would have joined the line to share track with NPR—importantly, including the stub and junction for where the line would join NPR, which would otherwise remain part of the design. Clearly, following the cancellation of phase 2, the stub and junction are no longer needed, so they should be removed from the design. Removing them would help to reassure that phase 2 could not be restarted at a later stage.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for making such powerful points. Does he hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and give him those reassurances—maybe right now?
Jack Brereton
Absolutely. We need reassurances from the Minister to allay the many fears among our communities throughout Staffordshire.
Amendment (c) is consequential on amendment (b), and both relate to the “Ashley infrastructure maintenance base - rail”. This IMB-R was specifically designed to service phase 2 of HS2. Given that phase 2 has been cancelled and that the IMB-R will no longer be required, NPR will be served by other facilities on the wider network. Again, the removal of the facility would give much reassurance about the cancellation of HS2 phase 2, and confirm that the project will not be brought back at some future point.
Amendment (d) would remove references to “high speed” but retain the word “railway”. This would be an important change, given that the line will be a conventional railway, not high speed. The NPR route between Manchester and Liverpool cannot and will not be high speed, because it is too short, at 67 km. It has two intervening stations and involves the use of sections with very sharp bends at Warrington and south of Liverpool, so it would be impossible for the route to be high speed. Without phase 2, it makes no sense to design this short section to high-speed standards, which would end up being dramatically over-specified and incur huge additional and unnecessary costs—unless, of course, the intention is to reignite phase 2.
On NPR, I must make it clear that I fully support the intention to properly connect cities and communities across the north. I know the importance of improved rail connectivity for my own city of Stoke-on-Trent, and I have led efforts to reopen more of our local rail network. I am incredibly grateful for the Government’s support for projects such as reopening Meir station and the Stoke to Leek line, which were included as part of Network North. I know the transformative impact that improving such rail services can have on the opportunities available to our communities.
What has been set out today, however, will not deliver on the intention of Northern Powerhouse Rail and communities in the north—it will not even come close. As the Minister and the Secretary of State will know, we have presented the Department with far superior alternatives, which should be given more serious consideration. The alternative upgrade proposals for the Chat Moss route would not only entail half the cost, but deliver far greater benefits. Upgrading the alternative route could deliver a shorter route between Manchester and Liverpool that is capable of delivering a 26% quicker journey time than is proposed. That is 26 minutes, as compared with the 35 minutes in the proposals.
Additionally, due to the extreme complexity and over-engineering of parts of the proposed route, not only could our proposal be delivered eight to 10 years sooner, meaning that communities across the north would feel the benefits far earlier, but our proposals would allow connectivity of the NPR core route to a far greater range of destinations throughout the north-west, including Preston, Wales and even into Scotland. It would also release the budget needed to enable the delivery of the much-desired underground through-platform at Manchester Piccadilly, which would otherwise remain far beyond reach.
To conclude, I hope that the Government will give far greater consideration to how NPR can be delivered, which can mean greater benefits and better value for money for the taxpayer. The proposal before us today does not do that. It is not even capable of delivering a functional piece of infrastructure. I strongly believe that the only way that can be achieved is through the introduction of a new hybrid Bill that is capable of properly delivering on the aspirations of Northern Powerhouse Rail and properly divorcing the scheme from phase 2 of HS2. It is essential that we see greater clarity and reassurance of communities throughout Staffordshire. Most importantly, we must see far greater urgency in progressing the unwinding of phase 2. I hope the Minister and the Department will take on board those concerns and reflect them in the action we need to see.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I just point out that there is a bit of interest here, and the debate must conclude by 6.13 pm. If Members could focus on pithy speeches, that would be useful for getting in as many people as we can.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I do not think I will detain the House long. I want to say two or three things. The first is that there is an element of unreality about this debate, as there has been about many debates on Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 phase 2b. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may remember this as a northern MP—I am sure the Minister will remember it, too—but almost exactly 10 years ago, on 23 June, George Osborne as Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester and announced Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Since that time, the rail system across the north of England has had three names: it has been HS3, Crossrail of the north, and Northern Powerhouse Rail. How much work has been done on it? There has been no design work, no land purchased and no money dedicated to it. Ten years later, we are here, and the Minister says, “We will crack on with it.” “Crack on”, if I may say, after 10 years of complete inactivity when it was a Government commitment, is a rum old phrase to use for Northern Powerhouse Rail, if the Minister does not mind me saying so. He has made a decent fist of a cackhanded decision by the Government on HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
At different times and for political reasons and for other reasons, people have counterpoised against each other the Crossrail of the north, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or HS3, against HS2. That is a strange thing to do, because if we increase the capacity of the rail system with HS2, those passengers have to have somewhere to go. The same applies if we increase the capacity, as I hope we do, with Northern Powerhouse Rail. If we have a good system going from Manchester to Hull via Bradford and Leeds and York, those passengers have to go somewhere.
If we have a new station at Manchester airport, we want people to come through it in great numbers, not just east-west but from the south as well. So that is a mistake, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). While I respect the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), they have been consistently opposed to HS2 for constituency reasons and how they see the impact of HS2 on Stafford, for example. Many of us on this side have seen the economic and transport benefits of HS2.
What I do not accept at all is the Prime Minister, unselected by his own party and unelected by the people of the United Kingdom, turning up after manifesto commitments from both parties—all three parties, in fact, if we go back to the original decision in 2009 when all three parties supported HS2—and saying, “We will stop it.” Whether we are talking about Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS2, the economic development of the north of England has, in effect, been abandoned by this Government. I do not know if the Prime Minister has ever driven up—or been driven up—the M6, but it is at full capacity. The decision to not go ahead with HS2 will reduce not only the capacity of the rail system but the speed because the trains will have to be split and they will not tilt. So the Government have isolated the north of England, and Manchester in particular.
Incidentally—this is not the main point of what I was going to say—I hear the Minister using the pork barrel politics of this Government by saying, “Well, Bradford can get this, so therefore it will not be supporting HS2.” When I chaired the board of Manchester airport, people in Yorkshire, the north-east and across the north of England knew the economic benefits of transport coming to Manchester. There was a North of England regional consortium that supported both Manchester airport and better links to it. So it is completely wrong to juxtapose investment in Bradford—which Bradford needs, as it has been neglected by most of the north of England—against investment in HS2 going to Manchester airport and to Manchester.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I declare an interest, in that I was a director of Manchester airport as well, some years back, as a Salford city councillor appointed to that position. Many in the House—although not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton)—will remember phase 1of HS2, and I sat on that Committee for the best part of a year and a half. The whole process was very elongated—I will try not to make my intervention too elongated—but what it boiled down to was that when members of that Committee, particularly those on the Government side, had constituency interests, they tended to be far more accommodating, and the costs spiralled because there were tunnels going here, there and everywhere instead of going direct. That inflated the price. The reason we are in this mess now is that the Government have realised that we are close to an election and they want to spend £12 billion of the £37 billion that should have been spent on phase 2. They are now scattering it around certain places in the north of England in the hope that they can use that promise to get more—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is a very elongated intervention.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very long intervention. He is obviously right. Cheryl Gillan did a fantastic job.She was opposed to HS2, and she increased the costs enormously by getting tunnels built under the hills in her constituency.
Another way of looking at the economic nonsense we have had from this Government is that we do not have a high-speed route for the nation; we have an extension of the London underground. We have tunnels leading out of London to Birmingham. I do not know the train times, but my guess is that the times going to Birmingham, going through the tunnels out of London, will be shorter than using the Elizabeth line to travel across London. HS2 is just part of the underground system. It is a London scheme now, not a national scheme.
Sir William Cash
At the moment, travelling from Stoke-on-Trent or Stafford down to London Euston, as Conservative Members do, takes just over an hour. I would have thought that most people regard that as pretty fast.
Graham Stringer
Indeed, but we are talking about major national infrastructure. I always hoped that HS2 would not just go to Manchester and Leeds but, for both political and transport reasons, would go to Scotland. As someone who believes in the Union between England and Scotland, I think that would help, and it would be very good transport policy, too.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking another intervention. Does he agree that cancelling the northern leg of HS2 has taken away capacity that is now ending up on the roads, and that we therefore have more congestion, more pollution and more environmental damage?
Graham Stringer
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope I have already made that point.
Jack Brereton
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland. Of course, it was always intended that HS2 would be compatible with the conventional network that serves Scotland. Why does he think the Department for Transport specified HS2 trains that are not able to tilt and are not the right size to go on the classic network?
Graham Stringer
I cannot answer that question. It was a Government decision, and the Minister has indicated that he will answer.
I respect those who oppose HS2. This House has supported HS2, which has been in all of our manifestos. I think it is outrageous that HS2 to Manchester has been cancelled by an insulting edict from the Prime Minister. The most important point in this debate was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who said that the elected Mayors of the west midlands and Greater Manchester have put together a plan to consider alternative methods of funding HS2. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government will not follow a “burnt fields” policy of destroying it to make it more difficult for an incoming Labour Government to resurrect it.
The Conservative Members present say that they will remain opposed to HS2, and I remain supportive, because HS2 is good for the country, good for the environment and good for the economy of the north of England.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am conscious of the time, and we have a number of Members to get through.
This debate is about fairness and scrutiny. For those living along the 24 km section of Northern Powerhouse Rail that is common with phase 2 and who will be blighted by this process, especially between Rostherne and Warrington, is it really fair that the route has not been defined? I do not think it is fair, because it will have a major impact on all the people in that area for an awful long time.
I think all of us in this House believe that it is right to be investing more in our railways and road networks, whether they are in Staffordshire and the wider midlands or in the north of England. I, like many Members in this House, find it crazy how much difficulty we have crossing from Yorkshire into Lancashire or vice versa and on infrastructure that has sadly been neglected over multiple generations. But we are not talking about small amounts of money here. We are talking, at the most conservative end of the spectrum, about £12 billion, and if one were to speak to less-involved individuals and rail experts, most of them would say that the current proposals on NPR are in region of £16.2 billion.
Surely on the basis of scrutiny and accountability, this House should be very interested and engaged in how such large amounts of money are going to be spent and properly purposed. Some of us across the House will have differing views, but we should be able to scrutinise the proposals properly and put arguments forward for our constituents and the communities we represent, as opposed to this just being shuffled off upstairs into a Committee. Though we are grateful to many members of that Committee and the former Committees there have been for the work they do, this issue involves significant amounts of public money and will not be properly debated.
Looking at this project in its purest form, we are giving permission for a railway that starts in a field in Cheshire and ends somewhere in the Pennines at a place called node 3. I am not quite sure where node 3 is, and I am not sure whether many constituents of mine or people in this House have expressed a particular desire to visit node 3. That is how ill-defined this all is. We are effectively giving a complete pass to a small group of—I am sure—well-meaning and well-intentioned Members of this House to determine so much, when there is much debate we need to have.
There may be a great amount of discord. There will be Conservative Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) and myself who have great concern about the HS2 project in its entirety and considerable concern as to whether what is being proposed will get the best value for money and deliver the best service for our constituents across the midlands and the north. There will be Members on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps those on the Government Benches, with contrasting views, but it is right that the project is properly debated and properly discussed. We are going to be blighting the lives of so many people across Cheshire and other parts of the north-west of England without having had a proper debate.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the right hon. Gentleman not missing the point by talking, as he has done for however many minutes, about process rather than outcomes? When other countries around the world do major infrastructure projects, they look at the whole picture, decide what they want to do, they get on with it and they finish it. They do not have all the hurdles we have in this country. The French, German, Japanese and Chinese look at this country and laugh. They laugh because the nimbyism that exists on both sides of this House is stopping economic progress and impacting the standing of this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We must ensure interventions are brief because the debate has to finish at 6.30pm. Four more Members wish to speak, possibly, before I have to call the Minister, so I ask colleagues to be conscious of that.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I guess I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) says. We are talking about a programme that will deliver something for some people in the mid-2040s, which does not seem to be much of a dynamic, outcome-driven process. The hon. Gentleman wants to drive the programme through so that his constituents, and all of our constituents, can get to node 3 in the middle of the Pennines. That is not necessarily the best form of process. He is right that we should be concerned about outcomes and how we deliver the best outcomes for people across the country, but we are shuffling the matter upstairs without having a proper debate. We are effectively abdicating democratic accountability and responsibility over a budget and moneys of over £16 billion. I think we should be interested in that.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should ultimately draw a line under the mess they got themselves into with HS2, start again and allow us all to start with a completely new process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I warn those who want to get in later that I will have to limit speeches to five minutes.
Sir Gavin Williamson
In light of colleagues wanting to speak, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
There is a serious question about whether we are in danger of spending a lot more money. Members of Parliament in Staffordshire are concerned that these measures are being used as a Trojan horse to ram HS2 through by the back door. There is also concern that we are trying to bend a scheme that does not deliver the best outcomes for people in the north, the midlands or across the country. When there is so much concern that a scheme is not delivering those outcomes, we should ensure there is proper scrutiny of the process. I urge the Minister to give clear reassurance about the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, other hon. Members and I have raised. If he does not, he may have to start afresh and anew.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has indicated that she does not want to speak, but I urge colleagues to limit their comments to five minutes or so in order to get everyone in.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the debate so we can reflect on the importance of high-speed rail, the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, and connecting our towns and cities.
When we talk about connectivity, we always talk about the great powerhouses that are our cities, but our towns matter too. In many cases, towns have been the first to see cuts and the last to see investment. We need to use this opportunity to talk about our communities in the round. Generations to come will look back at this period in our history with regret at a missed opportunity to invest in the future of our country. When previous generations planned the infrastructure we see today, and in many ways take for granted, whether that is the canal, railway or motorway network that we enjoy, people had foresight. They planned well ahead, understood that in order to create a connected country they had to plan for a connected country, and took decisions for future generations, not only the current one. In that spirit, the cancellation of HS2 from the midlands to the north is a matter of serious regret.
The proposals have been pitched to say, “Well, the north of England can now have Northern Powerhouse Rail. Isn’t that good news?” Of course the £12 million investment connecting Manchester and Liverpool is welcome, but London did not have to choose between HS2 and the Elizabeth line, which cost £19 billion. If London does not have to choose, why on earth should the north of England have to choose on the same basis? Again, it is because the north of England has been shortchanged when it comes to investment.
Local leaders and Mayors across the midlands and the north have been working hard to try to rescue this decision and make some sense of what it can mean for future investment. We owe a significant debt of gratitude to our great council leaders, our Mayors and our transport authorities—particularly the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, Transport for the North and the local transport bodies—for the work they have done.
None the less, there are serious questions about the proposal on the table. Why do the Government seem to want to close the door completely on the idea that a midlands to Manchester link of HS2, funded by private finance, might be an option in the future? If the Government do not want to fund it today, why close the door for a funding model tomorrow?
Why has Manchester Piccadilly been told that it cannot have tunnelling that would take the platforms underground instead of overground, when the whole of the south of England is more or less tunnelled from the centre of London outwards? Why is a tunnel good enough for a field in the south of England, but not for one of our major cities in the north of England?
Manchester Airport station is a significant hub not just for Greater Manchester, but for the whole of the north of England, so why is Greater Manchester and its taxpayers being asked to make a local contribution to that scheme, when it is essentially a national project?
Why not use this as an opportunity to look at transport in the round? Heavy rail is important, and all the benefits of HS2 were well-rehearsed: they were about capacity, passenger transport, taking freight off the congested motorways, increased frequency and reducing costs. The whole project was also an opportunity to look at transport in the round—multi-modal transport, including bus, trams, trains and other airports. Why not use this as an opportunity to look beyond the cities to our towns? It is a significant frustration in Greater Manchester that most of our transport relies on the centre of Manchester to go in and out, because the cross-borough connectivity is so poor. Why not use this as an opportunity to bring forward plans to have an orbital tram for Greater Manchester—for the north-east of the conurbation—connecting the Bury line to Middleton and on to Chadderton and Oldham and through to the Ashton line, which, under these plans, faces a two-year closure during engineering works at Manchester Piccadilly. Why not use this as an opportunity for that?
Why not use this scheme as an opportunity to reinvigorate plans for reopening some of the lines closed by Beeching? It would be fantastic to reopen the Middleton Junction station on the Rochdale to Manchester Victoria line, serving new communities that have been rebuilt around the Foxdenton Lane area in Chadderton. Why not use it as an opportunity to have a joined-up transport system? FirstGroup, through the Lumo brand, has suggested a potential 2027 connection from Rochdale to London Euston. It will pass through Mills Hill in Chadderton and Moston, which serves Chadderton, without stopping to say hello. Why not look at that in the round and say that, since the light rail system was introduced in Oldham, there is no longer a heavy rail station for Oldham town centre. The nearest that we have is Mills Hill, so why not have that national connectivity at Mills Hill, joining up to Victoria and on to London Euston?
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful argument, but he is also making an argument as to why this should be a wider discussion; it should not just be shunted upstairs. Does he agree that we need to open up this debate so that we can have bespoke, clear legislation to make this happen?
Jim McMahon
The problem is that there was no debate or legislation when the Prime Minister woke up one morning and decided to cancel HS2; it was done on a whim. All those manifesto commitments, all those promises to the business community and to the public that we would see this through, because we had a generational responsibility to plan for the future, were scrapped overnight. I have no faith that any further parliamentary process will ultimately deliver better transport in the north of England. In the end, it will be used by people who have another interest, which is to stop it entirely.
Jack Brereton
If we had a Labour Government—I hope that we will not—does the hon. Gentleman think that they would bring phase 2 back?
Jim McMahon
In the end, it would be for the Labour Government to assess what they inherit at that point, but does that not make the case for not having a scorched-earth policy of completely derailing what could have been HS2 by selling off the lands and the assets that were purchased to free up that route in the way this Government are currently proposing?
James Grundy
The hon. Gentleman calls it a scorched-earth policy. I declare my interest as somebody whose family farm is affected by the proposed route of HS2 phase 2b, but ultimately people such my own family and the community I live in have been suffering for over a decade with uncertainty about whether the project would go ahead. He calls it scorched earth, but is it not only fair that people get their life back after having that uncertainty for so long?
Jim McMahon
Any functioning Government should be able to balance the need to involve local people in decisions that affect their day-to-day lives, providing certainty about the future and being able to get vital infrastructure investments for the country off the ground. It should not be a trade-off between one or the other, where people’s livelihoods and lives are left in the air for years and years, only for the project to be taken away. In the end, nobody wins, do they? People cannot get the time back that they wasted being stressed about the impact because they were not properly consulted and engaged, only to have it scrapped overnight—and for what? It is about involving people in the right time in the right decisions, so that they have agency in the process.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with this: if London did not have to choose between its sub-regional investment and its national investment, why on earth should the north of England?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to get the last two speakers in, I need to put on a time limit of six minutes.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I think I can do it a lot quicker than that.
I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friends from Staffordshire and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who set out the practical side. I also agree with the scrapping by the Government of the Birmingham to Crewe section, but that does have consequences, both for my constituents and for those between Crewe and Manchester.
Having looked at the appalling behaviour of HS2 over the years, the mess over compensation that is still carrying on, and things like that—I have been into all that in the past, and it is not strictly speaking the subject of this particular debate, but it is a very serious point—I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that the Bill should be withdrawn and reintroduced, to ensure that the petitioners by reason of valid additional provisions, as a matter of principle, can have it examined properly in all respects, ab initio.
As I said in my interventions, the sleight of hand of this instruction, which as I have already noted is self-contradictory and purports to provide for matters that are, in my opinion, unprincipled and, as a matter of law and procedure, are stating things to be so that simply are not so, is not the way to proceed. There is a lot of merit in the way the Government are reorientating the objects in order to improve the situation in other parts of the country. However, as regards those directly affected—and ultimately the hybrid Bill procedure and its principles are about protecting those petitioners injuriously affected by a Bill’s provisions—I believe the motion is morally unjustified, indefensible and damaging to the rights of petitioners, with respect both to the constituents between Birmingham and Manchester and to my constituents who will be affected between Birmingham and Crewe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As the hon. Gentleman has been admirably short, I will call Grahame Morris, but please remember that I need to bring in the Minister as well.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will respect your wishes. I had not intended to speak in the debate, so I apologise for being late. I serve on the House of Commons Transport Committee, along with colleagues who spoke earlier from the Government Benches. I also served on the HS2 hybrid Bill Committee that dealt with the section from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Gentleman actually involved with a Bill that is currently in existence, or is he suggesting that something should be done in respect of a Bill that is not the same as the Bill that was introduced in the first place?
Grahame Morris
My goodness, that is a complicated intervention—I am not sure that I am suitably qualified to answer it. I just thought that I might share some of my thoughts having served on the Bill Committee, without any particular axe to grind.
I served on the Bill Committee because I was asked to do so as a servant of the House, in order to consider the merits or otherwise of the various petitions. I do not know whether Members are familiar with the process. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is perfect, and I know that there are arguments for revising the hybrid Bill procedure, which is quite lengthy, but some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested—perhaps through a lack of understanding of the process—that it is a mechanism for steamrolling through opposition, and I can absolutely assure them that that does not happen. In fact, if anything, petitioners—who may be individuals, businesses, environmental groups, local authorities or groups representing commercial interests, such as the National Farmers’ Union—are given ample opportunity to make representations to the Committee through petitions, and then to speak to those petitions and articulate their arguments for mitigation, compensation and route variation.
Jack Brereton
The hon. Member will know from Transport Committee visits that some of the commitments made in the hybrid Bill Committee have not been honoured. Does he share my concerns about that?
Grahame Morris
As well as having served on the hybrid Bill Committee, I serve on the Transport Committee, and part of that Committee’s duties is to scrutinise HS2 and hold the Rail Minister, who is responsible for the delivery of HS2, to account. Certainly, concerns were expressed to the Transport Committee that statutory undertakings and assurances were not honoured—at least not in the form in which they were presented to the Committee.
Jim McMahon
This was only separated out because, as in this debate, some tried to make out that residents were opposed to the project overall. However, my hon. Friend must have seen in the hybrid Bill Committee process that quite a lot of the opposition was about the operational performance of HS2 Ltd and the considerations for local people in construction traffic, delays and the rest of it, which probably could have been done much better.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that perfectly reasonable point. Indeed, it is certainly true of requests for variations to traffic in locations of construction sites and so forth. However, I only have a couple of minutes, so I do not want to be tempted on to the wrong track, as it were, and will just share a couple of thoughts.
I am a bit of a buff. I might be an anti-node, but I am familiar with the locations on the route.
This afternoon, those of us on the Transport Committee have been involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the rail reform Bill, and have been listening to representations from representatives of the Welsh Government and the sub-national transport bodies. They were commenting on the new structure and the new draft Bill, and there is general recognition—not just from Transport for the North in my region; we had witnesses from Midlands Connect and Transport East, as well as the Welsh Government—that there is a major transport infrastructure issue. For many decades, we have concentrated on north-south connectivity—principally on connectivity with the capital city. We have done that for sound economic reasons, but the case for east-west connections is supported vociferously by the metro Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, and there are sound economic and connectivity arguments for addressing the need for those connections.
This mechanism is far from perfect. As a separate matter, the House should look at whether the pre-legislative scrutiny process can be truncated in some way to speed it up, but we must give petitioners—Members of Parliament, individuals and businesses—the opportunity to raise their concerns. Imperfect though the mechanism may be, and imperfect though I may be in advocating for it, it does have its merits when it comes to scrutinising major infrastructure schemes such as this one, so I will support today’s motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) opened his remarks by saying that he might have been late for the debate. I can assure him that I have been told he was certainly in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. Otherwise, I would not have let him speak. I call the Minister.
Huw Merriman
With the leave of the House, I commend the motion to the House. As I said earlier, today’s debate marks an important step forward in improving travel in the north, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members for their input. In the time I have, I will try to address as many of the contributions made as possible. Colleagues from across the House made important points, which I will do my best to address.
I will start with the amendments, beginning with amendment (a). My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) talked passionately about the need to reduce uncertainty for local communities. There should be no doubt that the result of the unamended motion will be solely to remove all elements of the scheme that need to be removed for the cancellation of the cancelled section of HS2—I hope that provides the reassurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) asked for. I am sure that the House would agree that the Network North announcement was unambiguous in its commitment to stopping that scheme, and the Government have already started reinvesting the money that was saved in alternative projects across the country.
The Government agree that it would be ideal if we could announce the precise point of truncation now, but that point of truncation cannot be specified until there has been a full assessment of the works that will be needed to deliver this section of Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, I assure the House that the Department and the organisation are working to deliver that assessment, with an eye to securing the best value for money for taxpayers and reducing disruption for residents. The results of the assessment will be published in a supplementary environmental statement as soon as possible. As an aside, accepting amendment (a) as drafted would leave a hole in the railway in the event that the truncation was not as specified by the amendment, which would obviously not be an ideal way to build a railway.
Amendment (b) would remove a proposed maintenance depot from the Bill. That depot, which could be a temporary structure, in place during the building of the railway, is in Ashley in the constituency of Tatton. For clarity, I should add that all aspects of the scheme between Millington and Manchester are being reviewed to ensure that they are necessary. Whether there should be a maintenance depot at Ashley is a matter for petitions to the Committee, and if the motion is carried unamended, the Committee will have the opportunity to discuss the maintenance depot through petitions.
In general, we believe that the works at Ashley mentioned in amendment (b) will be needed to minimise road traffic in the area as far as possible, and that is why there is no proposal to remove it at this stage. Furthermore, some of the materials needed to build the railway are very large, such as sections of rail, and these very large items can only be brought in safely by rail. We will, however, assess whether the size of the site can be reduced. Amendment (c) is consequential on amendment (a), about which I have already spoken.
Finally, turning to amendment (d), removing the words “high speed” could have unfortunate consequences for the Bill. It would allow petitioners to argue for amendments that stipulate speed restrictions, which could greatly impede the eventual operation of the railway. It would also mean that the motion was less aligned with the current title and agreed purpose of the Bill. The Government’s aspiration for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project is to deliver the best for the north, including the fastest journey times possible. We want to bring the urban centres of the north closer together, driving economic growth by making it easier to live, work and recruit across the different parts of the region. The reference to “high speed” rail in the instruction to the Committee underlines this commitment.
Huw Merriman
I will not take any interventions because of time.
Let me touch on some of the other points raised. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, just to be absolutely clear, the original instruction for the Select Committee was to consider HS2 phase 2b and Northern Powerhouse Rail, as was debated at length in June 2022, and I believe that was the mandate given. It was never the case that we were going to talk about phase 2b alone; NPR was very much part of the purpose.
Opposition Members have said that we should crack on—or I used those words—but let me make it clear that my advice is that it would take an extra five years to start this process all over again, as opposed to two weeks to repurpose the Committee, so if we want to see Northern Powerhouse Rail delivered, it makes sense to follow this mechanism. Having worked with officials in Parliament, I believe that this mechanism is correct, and I do not agree with the points made about how it is somehow not valid. We would not put something through the House if the House officials had not agreed that it was in order.
On Chat Moss, I have made the point time and again to my right hon. and hon. Friends—we have discussed this a lot; no one can say that we have not had a good, rigorous discussion—that the proposal would miss out Manchester airport and Warrington Bank Quay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, I do not agree with the points he makes, and he does not agree with the points I make; that is the beauty of democracy.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), as well as the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), spoke along the lines of the north being short-changed. I absolutely dispute that, and let me give them the example of the TransPennine route upgrade, because that is the start of Northern Powerhouse Rail. It is going on right now, and the electrification for Stalybridge will be ready for next year. On the points about Crossrail, more money will be invested by this Government or the UK taxpayer on the TRU—just that section, which is the backbone or precursor of Northern Powerhouse Rail—than on the entirety of Crossrail, so I do believe that we are investing in the north, and I support investment in the north.
As far as the plans for Birmingham to Manchester are concerned, I understand that the mayors are working on proposals. Those proposals have not been put to us, so we do not have anything to address. The Government have been clear—others may not agree with us—that we are not moving forward with phases 2a or 2b of HS2. Those are our proposals.
There was talk of pork barrel politics in relation to Bradford, which I think is a new one for Conservative Members, but I went there with the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), and the Government are committed to giving Bradford what it needs to regenerate the youngest city in this country. I fully support what we are doing to repurpose moneys from HS2 for Bradford, Hull and other parts of the north and the midlands.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton about an underground station in Manchester, the options available are being assessed, so the proposal is on the table to discuss and look at. I think there is only one London station that has an underground element, which is the Thameslink part of St Pancras, so London does not have a plethora of such underground stations. However, we want to work with the Mayor of Manchester to see what is possible, and that also applies to the Mayor of Liverpool.
The great man the hon. Member for Easington talked about the hybrid Bill Committee. He talks with experience, because he has been on it. I thank him for that, and I hope his work will start again in a couple of weeks’ time. He is absolutely right, and I have talked to the Chairman of Ways and Means to ensure that we can amend the process to make it faster, so that we can build this railway faster.
In conclusion, my officials and I will continue to engage with local residents, leaders and communities, and Members of this place regarding how we design the railway and how to minimise disruption from construction. I understand the differing concerns of hon. Members across the House, but I am keen, as always, to work with them constructively to try to address those points and move this project forward. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
Petitions
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I rise to present the petition of residents of the United Kingdom in the parish of Winterbourne, in the constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke, relating to the Hambrook junction and the prohibition of vehicles crossing the junction in all directions, as they previously did. An identical petition online that has reached almost 4,000 signatures also addresses this problem, which residents can still sign. That petition was started by local residents Mr and Mrs Gay, who are also the signatories to this petition.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke,
Declares that petitioners object to traffic lights being disabled; further declares that motorists are forced to drive further to get to where they need to be.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage South Gloucestershire Council to reinstate the status quo ante and turn these traffic lights back on.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002991]
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on implementing the decent homes standard in the private rented sector.
Over a million households in the private rented sector are living with damp, mould and other serious hazards, with one in five private renters reporting housing issues making them physically sick. The introduction of a legally binding decent homes standard in the private rented sector will significantly increase the enforcement powers of local authorities and help to hold private landlords to account.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to introduce the Decent Homes Standard in the private rented sector across England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Manchester Gorton,
Declares that a decent home is warm, weatherproof and has reasonably modern facilities; further declares that everyone deserves to live in a home that is decent, safe and secure; notes that in the North West of England, a third of private rented homes fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard; further notes that hazards in the private rented sector cost the NHS £290 million annually; further declares alarm that over one in five private rented homes are not up to standard and as a consequence there are over a million households living with damp, mould and other serious hazards affecting their physical and mental health; and further notes that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published A Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper in June 2022 which made provisions for a Decent Homes Standard and though the Government has committed to bringing such measures in, no details have yet been forthcoming.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to introduce the Decent Homes Standard in the private rented sector across England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002979]
Allergy Guidance for Schools
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important debate.
For too long, allergies have been seen as a personal issue to be managed by the individual affected. That needs to change. Allergies in school-age children are rising quickly, and around 45,000 people born each year will develop an allergy. School should be a safe space for our children to grow and develop, yet for those with allergies and their families the joy of education is too often compromised by safety and medical risk. There are 680,000 pupils in England with an allergy, so every classroom has at least one or two living with an allergy. Tragically, anaphylaxis occurs in educational settings more than in any other public space, and that shows in and of itself that we need to take action. We need to address this today—it has already gone on for too long—to give parents and children the confidence of knowing that our schools are allergy safe. If we do not, the consequences are truly heartbreaking.
Benedict Blythe from Stamford was a gifted child. He was able to complete a 24-piece puzzle by himself aged just one. He could match number cards by 18 months and create pie charts by the time he was school age. His mother Helen recalls purchasing him a book of the complete human nervous system in an attempt to quench his thirst for knowledge. By aged four, Benedict was a member of Mensa and practising maths at the level of a 10-year-old. He was a truly talented child, but it was his compassion and care for his family, and his infectious energy that made him just so loved.
Despite all his strengths, his life was marked by challenges stemming from his asthma and his allergies. As he began to try a wider range of foods, as all children do, Benedict suffered allergic reactions, first to baby rice, then to baby porridge and then to whey powder. What should have been a normal part of growing up saw him hospitalised. His family, through careful planning and care, worked out what he could eat safely. But while they could guarantee his safety at home, they had to trust others with Benedict when he went on play dates, mixed with other children and, eventually of course, went to nursey and school.
He was aware of his allergies. Like my nephew and so many others, he learnt to ask what was in a product before he ate. He was so cautious about he could and could not eat, but he also had to rely on those around him to keep him safe. Aged two, a nursery worker poured cows’ milk over his cereal, causing a severe reaction. The worker claimed he had been given oat milk and only admitted the mistake once young Benedict’s lips and tongue had begun to swell, and he suddenly stopped being able to breathe. The delay in admitting the mistake and beginning treatment for the reaction could have been fatal. However, tragically, that repeated itself when, aged just five, Benedict ate something at school that caused him to collapse, and he died the same day.
I know that the whole House will join me in honouring Benedict and recognising his unique character and intelligence. He dreamt of becoming a doctor, and I am sure he would have achieved that ambition and so much more. His story is every mother and father’s nightmare: the loss of their child, the pain so profound as to be unimaginable; their child going to school and just never coming home. Yet despite that nightmare, Benedict’s mother has endeavoured to ensure that other children can go to school safely, and I salute her for her fortitude and her strength.
Alicia Kearns
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has himself held debates on this important issue.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for raising the issue. She has told the story of young Benedict so well. She has honoured him and honoured his family, and we thank her for that. My second son is now a young man, but as a wee boy he had a number of allergies, so I understand the issue all too well: I understand the importance of controlling a boy’s diet and, indeed, the very life that he leads. Does the hon. Lady agree—in fact, I think she may be coming to this point—that given the increase in the incidence of allergic reactions, each school must have a trained member of staff on the premises at all times to know the signs and how to deal with them? Does she also agree—and here I look to the Minister—that the necessary funding uplift must be allocated in addition to existing school budgets?
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The problem is that because the guidance is currently not mandatory, schools have completely different responses. At my nephew’s school, for example, there is a picture of every child with a severe allergy on the teachers’ board, so that every day when the teachers go in they know which children to be more alert to, and in an emergency they know exactly what to do because there is a commentary under each picture. That is the kind of response that we need, but yes, we will need more. We saw the Government act strongly and quickly in response to the need to install atrial defibrillators in schools, and I ask them to take the same approach in this regard. The number of children who have died of allergies in our schools is far higher than the number who have died of any sort of heart incident, so I really think that it is time for action.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this important debate, and on the fact that although Adjournment debates are normally lonely affairs, others are present for this one. Does she agree that the cost the Government would incur in helping schools to provide, for example, adrenaline pens is, in the overall scheme of things, very small indeed, and should not be a barrier to supplying schools with a little bit of extra cash to procure a few adrenaline pens which may save lives?
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him for raising this issue during Prime Minister's questions only last week on behalf of Benedict and his family. Other countries have taken action, and we have the opportunity to do the same.
The Benedict Blythe Foundation has worked tirelessly under Helen’s leadership to investigate the issues facing pupils with allergies, and—most importantly—to make policy recommendations to solve them. That work culminated earlier this year with the publication of the REACT report, and I want to summarise its findings; it is the first time that the House will have heard them. The authors investigated 2,198 schools across England, 10% of the total, and found, concerningly, that a third of them had no clear policy on allergies—not that they had a reduced or non-mandatory policy, but that they had no policy at all. Many schools did not record allergy incidents accurately, and, most worryingly, half of them did not have lifesaving medicine on site. Only two years ago, a young child died at school because another child had thrown a piece of cheese at his face. His reaction was so extreme that he died that day. If he had had access to lifesaving medicine, that child would still be with us.
Extensive research has made it clear that allergy provision in schools is a lottery. Some schools go above and beyond to create an allergy-safe environment, but the lack of an allergy policy in others is absolutely wrong. I ask Members to imagine being the parent of a child with an allergy. How would they feel about sending their loved one to school not knowing whether he or she would be safe? Too many parents are not confident about sending their child to school, which unfortunately means that we are seeing too many children with allergies miss days of school. That is a priority for us to tackle. Following the pandemic, we know just how damaging it is not to have our children in school.
I am afraid that the root cause of these issues is a lack of clarity in the Department for Education guidance, and a lack of accountability mechanisms to ensure that existing guidance is followed. In the previous debate on this matter, which was organised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we discussed the need for that to be part of Ofsted inspections, because it should be part of the mechanisms. The medical conditions statutory guidance currently given to schools does not mention allergies specifically, and there is evidence that some schools consider allergies to be a dietary issue, rather than a medical consideration. That is just not good enough and, frankly, it is dangerous. Some 70% of schools do not have the recommended allergy safeguards in place, which demonstrates that having well-meaning guidance is just not sufficient. I therefore ask the Minister to consider issuing new, bespoke guidance to all schools on how to be allergy safe. That would not be onerous; it would simply require an email to go out to every single school in the country.
Drawing on extensive research and expert opinion, the REACT report has produced a set of safeguards that would ensure that our education system is safe for all pupils. First, it argues that every allergic reaction should be recorded and reported. I am not surprised that the Department for Education may well under-recognise the importance of this issue, because that is not taking place. It would allow schools with a high number of pupils with allergies to get more support, and it would give decision makers the information they need to make informed decisions and ensure the intelligent distribution of resources.
Secondly, all schools should have a specific allergy policy, including an anaphylaxis plan. Allergies are potentially life-threatening and are so common that they should have their own bespoke policy, separate from those for other medical conditions.
Thirdly, every school should have an individual healthcare plan for every child with an allergy, and it should be reviewed with a doctor. Seemingly mild allergies can quickly morph into severe reactions, and attempts at distinguishing between children on the basis of allergy severity are misled and potentially damaging. Just because a child is assessed as having a low allergy risk does not mean that they will not have a severe reaction one day. Mandating individual healthcare plans for every child with an allergy would create a safe environment.
Fourthly, funding should be given for every school to train its staff in how to administer adrenalin auto-injectors in an emergency. Each school should also keep a spare inhaler and antihistamine as part of a bespoke, allergy first-aid kit.
Fifthly, all school staff should receive basic training in allergy awareness management and emergency response, which is also about a duty of care for them. If I were a teacher, I would not want to operate in that environment if I did not know how to respond should a child in my care have a severe allergic reaction. It is vital that we give teachers the tools they need, and that we ensure that best practice is learned from schools with comprehensive allergy plans.
Finally, accountability mechanisms should be established to monitor and support schools as they implement their allergy plans. Sadly, as we have seen, there is already a gulf between what the Government recommend on allergies and what schools are actually implementing. As we introduce better and clearer guidance, we must ensure that it is followed across the country.
Adopting those policies would ensure that children with allergies can go to school safe in the knowledge that they will not be exposed to danger. There is no way to eradicate all risks when it comes to allergies, but we can make schools as allergy-safe as possible. Every parent needs to know that their child’s condition is not being ignored, dismissed, misunderstood or played down, and teachers also deserve that surety.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) pointed out, our international partners have shown that change is achievable. Sabrina’s law requires Canadian schools to provide allergy and adrenaline auto-injector training for all teachers and staff. Minnesotan law mandates that all allergic students have access to emergency medicine and an individual healthcare plan. The Allison Rose Suhy Act incentivises schools in Ohio to train both staff and students on allergy awareness. Elijah’s law ensures that daycare employees in New York are trained to recognise anaphylaxis and to administer adrenaline. Finally, Amarria’s law requires public schools in Virginia to stock adrenaline auto-injectors. There is no reason why children in the UK should face greater risks at school than their peers abroad. These allergy provisions have been common practice across the US, Australia and Canada for decades, and we now need to adopt them here.
The policies set out by the Benedict Blythe Foundation in the REACT report show how we can not just match international standards, but surpass them and make the UK the safest place in the world for pupils with allergies to attend school. This is a condition on the rise. More and more children have allergies, and we need to take action. I therefore ask the Government to commit to producing Benedict’s law, and to meet me to discuss how it can be implemented. We are not looking at significant costs or wanting to put more duties on teachers. We want to make sure that teachers feel that they are in a safe workplace where they can take the action needed to do what they care about most: protecting and supporting their children and young people to become strong adults with bright futures ahead of them.
In memory of Benedict Blythe and in honour of his mother Helen’s tireless advocacy, we should ensure that no pupil with an allergy and their family ever again have to choose between feeling safe and medical safety and taking up education. No parent should live in fear that their child will not come home from school one day as a result of a condition that can be prevented. There is no reason for any child to die in our schools of an allergy. We just need simple allergy policies, adrenaline auto-injectors and to take action. We can save lives by taking action now. I thank the Minister in advance for his consideration, and I look forward to hearing his response.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. I greatly value the opportunity to hear her insights today and elsewhere on this important topic. I must first take a moment, as she did, in memory of Benedict Blythe, who died at his school in December 2021 aged just five years. I was saddened immensely to hear of that unimaginable tragedy, and I know that Members from all parts of the House join in offering our sincerest condolences to his family, to other families who have lost children in such circumstances and to those who have suffered what must be terrifying near misses. No parent should have to go through that.
Colleagues will appreciate that it would not be right or proper for me to comment on the details of Benedict’s individual case while we are awaiting the outcomes of the coroner’s inquest. I can confirm that last year officials from the Department for Education met Benedict’s mother, Helen Blythe, to hear about the important work she has led through the Benedict Blythe Foundation to raise awareness of how best to protect children with allergies. I echo the words that my hon. Friend used of Helen Blythe, speaking of her fortitude and strength. I commend Helen for those efforts and her commitment, and I commend parliamentarians who have supported this work—not only my hon. Friend, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
When parents send their children to school, it is only right and natural that they expect them to be kept safe. For parents of children with allergies, there is that additional level of concern. Allergies can be complex conditions and can range enormously in severity. Although today we have been speaking mostly about food allergies, not all allergens are foods, which makes the issue more complicated again. Allergies themselves are therefore a highly individual and varied condition that require individualised responses. That is why the Government have put into place a number of pieces of legislation, as well as guidance to schools and parents covering a range of areas and circumstances. I have heard the calls to strengthen the law around allergies and references to voluntary approaches and voluntary guidance. I stress that section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils at their school with medical conditions, and that includes allergies.
Shailesh Vara
I know the Minister is diligent, conscientious and caring in all that he does, and the tone he is adopting clearly shows that. While he is absolutely right that there is legislation and guidance for schools as to how to deal with this issue, I and others would say that it is too general in nature, and it leaves much discretion with the schools as to what precisely they do in the event of a child having an allergic reaction. I urge him to reflect and to consider tightening the laws, so that they become mandatory. That should be in a limited way, but nevertheless we need some mandatory rules for schools, rather than them being left as general and vague as they are at present.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I acknowledge the gravity of what he says. Of course, we are talking about conditions that can be very varied, and the responses that are called for can be quite different. Schools know their pupils almost best; they, working with parents, who absolutely know their children best, are in the best place to enact that. I want to be clear that the guidance that accompanies what I have just been outlining is statutory guidance supporting pupils with medical conditions. It is not voluntary, and governing bodies must have regard to it when carrying out their duties.
Alicia Kearns
I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend because I know that he wants to make progress, but this might be something that he could commit to today. The problem, as I set out in my speech, is that too many schools think that allergies are a dietary issue, not a medical issue. If the next mailer to all schools reiterated that we see allergies very clearly as a medical condition, and reminded them of their statutory duties, that could go a long way to forcing all schools to take the action that he rightly says that they can take. This would not be as top-down; it would reiterate the regulations, and allow schools to take the action that they need to.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about awareness and understanding, and the role of communication in that. I will speak a little more about communication, but there is always more that we will need to do. Of course, I would also be happy to continue the conversation with her about how best we do it.
The guidance makes it clear that schools should ensure that they are aware of any pupils with allergies, and should have processes in place to ensure that the allergies can be well managed. Practices to identify children with such needs could include wristbands, or, as my hon. Friend said, having a photograph of the child alongside details of their allergy in the kitchen or serving area of the school. I stress again that individual schools are best placed to work with parents to put in place the most effective responsive system.
In addition to the section 100 duty, schools are subject to other requirements. In the UK, food businesses must inform consumers if they use any of the 14 mandatory allergens as ingredients in their food. How allergen information should be provided depends on whether the food is prepacked, non-prepacked or prepacked for direct sale. This includes food provided by institutions such as school caterers, who have a responsibility to protect the people in their care. As colleagues may know, rules on the provision of food labelling are set out primarily in the retained 2014 regulations, and these include a requirement to identify the presence of any of those 14 mandatory allergens to consumers.
The Department for Education also works closely with the Food Standards Agency, which provides free food allergy and intolerance training online. This offers practical advice to local authority law enforcement officers and anyone wanting to learn more about food allergies, such as those working in the food manufacturing and catering industries. The FSA also offers a whole host of other training, technical documents and guidance.
Turning to auto-injectors, these can be vital when a child is suffering an allergic reaction. To support schools in meeting the needs of children with allergies, the Government passed the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which allow schools to obtain and hold spare adrenaline auto-injectors for administration to pupils in an emergency. The Department for Health and Social Care has produced guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors and emergency inhalers in schools, including the purchase of spares. The guidance makes it clear that any adrenalin auto-injectors held by a school should be considered a back-up device, rather than a replacement for a pupil’s own adrenalin auto-injector.
Beyond this, families have a vital role to play in managing their child’s condition. We are very clear with schools that no one will know a child’s needs as well as their parents, and that schools should work closely with parents. The parents of children with allergies will work with medical professionals and other organisations to plan for and navigate their child’s specific needs. Parents should be fully consulted and engaged in any discussions relating to their child’s allergy.
Schools will also need to ensure that the parents or carers of children with food allergies or intolerances are given information about the allergenic ingredients used in the foods available. Good communication between parents and schools on allergies and pupils’ needs is essential to keep children safe while in school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the role of Ofsted, further to the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford, and the importance of schools having a clear allergies policy and involving parents in discussions about the needs of their children. Ofsted inspectors gather a wide range of evidence to make their judgments, and evaluate the experience of individuals or groups of individuals, which can include the experiences of pupils with medical needs, if the issue is raised by parents or pupils. In an inspection, inspectors will assess the effectiveness of safeguarding at the school, which includes the extent to which pupils with specific needs and vulnerabilities are kept safe. The safeguarding culture is also explored by speaking to leaders and staff about their work and the messages that pupils receive through the curriculum.
During last November’s Westminster Hall debate on pupils with allergies, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton informed the House that she would write to all schools in her constituency to ask them to adopt the voluntary schools allergy code, co-created by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the Independent Schools Bursars Association and the allergy team. Taking her lead, Ministers in the Department for Education instructed officials to share a link to the code in our fortnightly email bulletin to schools issued on 1 March. That communication also reminded school leaders of their duties concerning pupils with allergies.
For younger children, the early years foundation stage framework sets the standards that all registered early years providers must meet for the learning, development and care of children from birth to age five. The EYFS states:
“Before a child is admitted to the setting, you must obtain information about any special dietary requirements, preferences and food allergies that the child has, and any special health requirements.”
Providers must have a policy and procedures for administering medicines, and they must have systems for obtaining information about a child’s medicine needs and for keeping this information up to date. Training must be provided for staff where the administering of medicine requires medical or technical knowledge.
Within all early years settings, there is a requirement for at least one person with a current paediatric first aid certificate to be on the premises and available at all times when children are present, and they must accompany children on outings. The PFA criteria are clear that the training should include being able to help a baby or child who is suffering from anaphylactic shock.
Last September, we changed the adequate supervision requirement in the early years foundation stage to be explicit that adequate supervision while children are eating meals means that children must always be in sight and hearing of an adult, rather than within sight or hearing. This will help practitioners to see the signs of an allergic reaction as soon as they are present, and it will allow them to act quickly.
The new early years educator level 3 qualification criteria will also come into force in September, ensuring that early years practitioners have an understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis. In April 2024, the Department published nutrition content on the “help for early years providers” online platform. The content includes a section on allergies and anaphylaxis to help early years providers prevent allergic reactions, to recognise the signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction or anaphylactic shock, and to know what to do if they occur.
On 22 April, the Department launched a consultation on the safeguarding requirements in the EYFS. One of the proposals is the inclusion of a safer eating section, which includes requirements for all staff to be aware of the symptoms and treatments for allergies and anaphylaxis, and to obtain allergy action plans for children with allergies. We plan to publish our response to that consultation in the autumn.
I have outlined the various pieces of legislation and guidance that cover allergies in school. Given the complexity and individual nature of food allergies, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate for the Department for Education to legislate for food providers to cater for all requirements. However, through legislation, the minimum standards for school food have been clearly set out. Beyond that, headteachers, school governors and their caterers are best placed to make decisions about their school food policies that take into account local circumstances.
Alicia Kearns
I think we find ourselves in absolute agreement that schools should own their own allergy policies. Perhaps the Minister can reiterate from the Dispatch Box his request for schools to bring forward allergy policies focused specifically on the children who have allergies. They need to hear a clear instruction from the Minister at the Dispatch Box. We are clearly in agreement: schools should be leading on allergy policies in their schools, but the freedom of information research done by the Benedict Blythe Foundation shows that not enough of them do so.
Damian Hinds
I agree. As I said earlier, understanding and awareness are vital, and communication is what gives rise to them. That is why, following my hon. Friend’s lead, we issued a communication by email. I totally accept that there will be more to do, and I am more than happy to carry on that conversation with her.
Overall, we feel that the existing mix of national requirements and local flexibility is the appropriate approach to this complex and extremely important issue, though we always keep the policies under review. We welcome feedback on how we can better support schools’ implementation of them. I am pleased that DFE officials now sit on the expert advisory group for allergy, convened by the Department for Health and Social Care, and the National Allergy Strategy Group, which recommends priorities for allergy policy across Government. I encourage stakeholders to feed any ideas and points on these issues to officials via that route. I conclude by thanking once again my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton for bringing forward this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.