House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
Introduction: Lord Brady of Altrincham
Oaths and Affirmations
Online Safety Legislation: Abuse on Social Media
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of current online safety legislation to regulate abuse, including racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and sectarianism, on social media platforms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we take these issues very seriously. The Online Safety Act will tackle illegal abuse, protect children and empower users. Regulated providers, including social media companies, must implement systems to reduce the risk that their services are used for illegal activity, including illegal abuse. Under the Act, stirring up hatred is a priority offence, requiring providers to proactively combat illegal racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sectarianism.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her detailed Answer. What consideration have the Government given to the flourishing of hate content on smaller online platforms, which they have the power to regulate under the highest tier of regulation: category 1 under Schedule 11 to the Online Safety Act? Are the Government minded to reject Ofcom’s advice not to use the powers available to them under the Act to do so?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we share my noble friend’s concern about the flourishing of hate crime on these sites and particularly on smaller online platforms. The Secretary of State for DSIT is carefully considering Ofcom’s categorisation recommendations and will make regulations as soon as reasonably practical. He can decide to proceed with Ofcom’s advice or divert from it. If the latter approach is taken, a statement must be published explaining why.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it was reported today that the United States, the EU and the UK are all expected to sign the Council of Europe’s convention on AI, which emphasises human rights and democratic values in its approach to the regulation of public and private sector systems. The convention, which is legally enforceable, requires signatories to be accountable for any harmful or discriminatory outcomes of AI systems and for victims of AI-related rights violations to have legal recourse. In addition to the offence of sharing, is now not the time to consider criminalising the creation of sexualised deepfake images without consent? The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, called for this on 13 February in your Lordships’ House, and described deepfake abuse, which is almost wholly misogynistic and now epidemic. It is the new frontier of violence against women.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that, in addition to the implementation of the Online Safety Act, we already have plans to bring forward a new data Bill where some of these issues can be debated. We also have ambitions to bring forward a further piece of AI legislation, on which we will have the opportunity to talk about those issues in more detail. He is absolutely right: these are serious issues. They were debated at length during the passage of the previous data protection Bill, and we hope to return to them again.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that Ofcom is letting down the public? What we need is to review the role of Ofcom and other regulators and, if they are failing to do their duties for the public, they should be removed from office.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom has a very wide-ranging and serious set of responsibilities. There is no suggestion that it is not carrying out its responsibilities in the run-up to the implementation of the Online Safety Act. We are working very closely with Ofcom and believe that it will carry out those additional functions that we have given it with proper scrutiny and to high standards. Yes, there is a case for looking at all regulators; we have a debate on this on Monday in the House, and I am looking forward to that, but that is a wider issue. For the moment, we have to give Ofcom all the support that we can in implementing a very difficult set of regulations.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the crafting of the Online Safety Act was fraught with exceptions, exclusions and loopholes, the most egregious of which is that regulated companies get safe harbour if they comply with Ofcom’s codes, but Ofcom has provided us with codes that have huge gaps in known harms. What plans do the Government have to fulfil their election promise to strengthen the OSA by ensuring that it protects all children effectively, even the very young, and that it has adequate mechanisms to act swiftly in a crisis, or with an evolving new risk, to stop abuse being whipped up algorithmically and directed at minority groups?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I think that we are in danger of downplaying the significance of the Online Safety Act. It is a trail-blazing Act; the noble Baroness was very much involved in it. Our priority has to be to get that Act implemented. Under it, all user-to-user services and search providers, regardless of size, will have to take swift and effective action against illegal content, including criminal online abuse and posts of a sexual nature. We should get behind Ofcom and the Online Safety Act, and we will then obviously have to keep that Act under review, but we have the tools to do that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dem Benches and then from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dem Benches now and then from the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Does the Minister agree that digital literacy is crucial, so that people are better able to identify often damaging misinformation and fake news? What is the Government’s strategy in that respect?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Part of Ofcom’s responsibility is to heighten the role of media literacy. We are talking to the Department for Education, and obviously there is a role for schools to be involved in all this—but parents also have to take responsibility for their children, and for their access to these sites. The media literacy role that we have to play goes right throughout society; it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that people understand, when they access these sites, what they are able to see and how all that can be moderated. Again, the social media companies have a particular responsibility to play in all that. We expect them to uphold their terms of service to make sure that children cannot access the sites that are inappropriate, and we will work with them to make sure that this happens.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope that the Government will look with sympathy at the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, which the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned. It deals with very important issues.
The Minister will be aware of the arrest of Pavel Durov in France—the founder and chief executive of the messaging application Telegram. I do not expect her to be able to comment on an ongoing investigation, but can she tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government have had any contact with the Government of France in relation to this matter and whether British law enforcement agencies have been involved in the investigation? I appreciate that she may need to write after checking with them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all the work that he did in getting the Online Safety Act on to the statute book. With regard to Telegram, obviously we cannot comment on issues in another country’s jurisdiction. We have regular contact with all friendly nations dealing with those issues. I cannot comment on whether there has been specific dialogue on the issue of Telegram, but we would normally expect that to be something for the French Government to deal with.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I recognise absolutely the urgency and importance of legislation in this area, but does the Minister agree that equally important is the work of tackling the prejudice that lies behind online abuse, and the important role therefore of intermediate institutions such as community groups and faith groups in tackling prejudice? What are the Government doing to support those groups in that work?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. I think that we were all pleased with the community reaction to the riots. It was very heartening to see that people were not prepared to have those abhorrent views coming to the fore in their communities. We need to do more to encourage that community response, and we need to work with all of civil society, including the Church, to make sure that happens. We also need to make sure that the police, as they play a community role, make clear what is illegal and take action when actions in a locality are illegal. This is a much broader issue about civil society, and I agree with him.
Ukraine
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with European countries regarding Ukraine and its war with Russia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, Ukraine is defending itself against an illegal and unprovoked war launched by Russia, as per its right under the UN charter. UK support for Ukraine is ironclad. Ukraine was a key area of focus for the European Political Community summit at Blenheim, at which the Prime Minister brought leaders from across Europe together with President Zelensky. We are committed to working with our international partners to ensure that Ukraine gets the support that it needs to prevail.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while I recognise the loyal support of Labour in opposition for the war but equally that it is for Members to question strategy where they disagree—in my case with regard to Ukraine in 21 debates over two and a half years in this House—is it not time for a strategy rethink, with new emphasis on conflict resolution, perhaps drawing on the developing relationship between China and Russia and the more opportunist relationship between China and America? With concerns in Europe over the war and the only talk of negotiation coming from a nightmare Trump, can we at least start to think out of the box? Ukraine’s policy of last man standing is unsustainable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I completely accept my noble friend’s right to challenge, disagree and ask questions, both in this Chamber and outside it. I am very glad that we live in a country where that is encouraged and is possible with no consequences. It is for Ukraine to decide when it wishes to negotiate and on what terms.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not find the wording of this Question rather odd, referring as it does to Ukraine and “its war with Russia”, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two? Further, in any discussions that the Government have with other European countries, will they please stress that, in combat, the only real alternative to dominant firepower is to throw more bodies into the battle? Restrictions for whatever reason on the nature and scale of weaponry supplied to Ukraine will not only imperil its tactical situation but will almost certainly ensure that even more of its citizens are killed in Russia’s war of aggression.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I share the noble and gallant Lord’s thoughts on the wording of the Question from my noble friend. I too noted the emphasis on Ukraine’s “war with Russia” and I disagree with that way of looking at this conflict. The UK has provided £7.6 billion-worth of support, including £3 billion for 2024-25, and we are proud to stand alongside Ukraine as it defends its territory.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, our support for Ukraine must be unwavering, unflinching and demonstrable. The Minister has just referred to the element of support under military assistance provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine, but will she commit to this House that the support provided to Ukraine by the Government will, at the very least, be maintained at the same levels as that provided by the previous Government?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question but also for the work that she did in government on Ukraine. It is respected, and we wish to continue to support Ukraine both militarily and with non-military assistance. We have £242 million in bilateral, non-military assistance earmarked for 2024-25.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in her initial Answer, the Minister mentioned the Blenheim discussions, which the Government hosted. That is a very welcome forum, but will His Majesty’s Government also move forward with closer co-operation with the European Union on security and defence? That would be another way for us to work effectively with our neighbours to support Ukraine, which Members around the House, with the exception of the noble Lord asking the Question, all support.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct to highlight the need for the United Kingdom to work closely with all our allies, and we do so particularly with our European neighbours and partners.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, a Ukrainian drone pilot told me recently that, when they shoot down a Russian drone, they take it to bits and analyse the components. They are finding components that are manufactured in countries allied to Ukraine, including this one. Is that something that the Minister feels we should investigate further?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are of course interested in all such reports, and they will be considered fully.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, before permission is given for British-made missiles to strike targets deep in Russian territory, Parliament is given an opportunity to debate the future British policy towards Ukraine? That policy has profound implications for our national security and ought therefore to be the object of proper scrutiny and debate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The United Kingdom Government have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine. We understand that, in order to defend itself, Ukraine has needed to strike inside Russian territory on occasions—we accept and support this. It is unrealistic to think that none of those weapons or their components could have originated here. The situation as regards the limitations placed on what weaponry is given to Ukraine and what it can do with that remains consistent with the position of the previous Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, how can we expect the Ukrainians to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Will the Government allow them to use the weapons that we have supplied to the best of their ability to defeat this evil Putin regime?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely committed to supporting Ukraine to defend itself. I just point to our commitment to provide £3 billion per year every year until 2030-31, or for as long as is necessary.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, we should give President Zelensky the long-range weapons that he needs, but surely we cannot give him a blank cheque politically. The war has entered a phase of attrition. Surely now we must ask ourselves: to what extent is it realistic to expect Russia to have a policy where it leaves entirely both Crimea and the rest of Ukraine? Otherwise, the war of attrition and stalemate will continue indefinitely.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My view, and that of the Government, is that that assessment is for President Zelensky and the Ukrainians to reach. It is their country that has been invaded and it is for them to say on what terms, if any, they wish to negotiate.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there are signs that the most recent American sanctions are having an impact on the Russian dark fleet, which the Minister has previously mentioned in the House. Will the Government give an assurance that, when it come to the operation of the dark fleet or shadow fleet for oil or LNG, that there are no UK links with this, either through London, through insurance or brokering, or for landing licences or any flagging? This can have an impact on Russia and we need to make sure that no parts of the UK or overseas territories are associated with it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct to raise the issue of the shadow fleet. The UK has so far sanctioned 15 ships of the Russian shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions, as the noble Lord knows. In the margins of the European Political Community summit, 44 countries and the EU signed our call to action to tackle this specific issue.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the Government have risked the wrath of the United States by restricting sales of arms to Israel; why do they not risk the wrath of the United States by allowing Storm Shadow to be used on Russian soil in the conflict with Russia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Lord is wrong about the wrath of the United States and the characterisation he has just relayed. In fairness, some of what I have seen reported in some elements of the media is not correct and that is not the nature of the discussions that the UK has had with the United States on this issue or the other issue he raised.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, with respect to my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Campbell-Savours, I reassure my noble friend on the Front Bench that it is my view that the vast majority of Labour Members in this House and in the other place strongly support the Government on their unqualified support for Ukraine against the aggressor, Russia. Ukraine is fighting not just for its own territorial integrity but for all of us in democracies.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for ending this Question and summing it up quite so well. I agree with every word.
Emergency Alert Service
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many alerts have been sent using the Emergency Alert service since the national test in April 2023; and when the next national test of the system will take place.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Since the launch of the UK Government’s emergency alert system, the capability has been deployed twice: in February in Plymouth to aid an evacuation effort following the discovery of an unexploded World War II bomb; and in April this year as part of flood mitigation in Cumbria. At present, a second national test is not scheduled; however, the Government will continue to ensure the resilience of the system through regular technical testing and consider national tests as appropriate.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. I am sure that a further national test would be useful, both because there were one or two problems identified first time round and because it would help habituate the general public to these alerts. I am pleased to hear that there have been two cases where the emergency alert system has been used in localised areas. It could, for example, have been used with benefit to inform residents of Grenfell Tower about the change in evacuation policy had it been available at that time. What progress has been made in developing local protocols to ensure that fire services, local police services and maybe local authorities and others are ready to use that system? How quickly can the Cabinet Office authorise those?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Our thoughts go to everyone touched by the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report yesterday into the 72 victims of the Grenfell Tower fire. I am sure all noble Lords across the House share the determination expressed by the Prime Minister yesterday that nothing like this must ever happen again. My noble friend will be aware that alerts can currently be targeted down to electoral ward level and that, therefore, in a future incident akin to the horrific events at Grenfell Tower, the emergency alerting tool could now be an important aspect of the emergency response. I reassure him and Members across the House that all local resilience forums can both request an emergency alert and receive extensive training on this capability, which has been made available through the ResilienceDirect website. The Cabinet Office has also worked with the College of Policing’s multi-agency gold incident command programme to integrate awareness of emergency alerts.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, when the UK Government’s resilience framework was launched two years ago, one of its three core principles, as announced, was:
“Resilience is a ‘whole of society’ endeavour, so we must be more transparent and empower everybody to make a contribution”.
Since then, there has been remarkably little publicity, let alone any attempts to engage “the whole of society” in this endeavour. Given the likelihood of flood emergencies, heat emergencies, more pandemics and terrorist emergencies, we ought to be engaged. Will the new Government attempt to engage all of us, not just local government resilience frameworks and others, in making sure that the country is informed about and ready for these sorts of emergencies?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As noble Lords are aware, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will chair a dedicated Cabinet committee to oversee the Government’s review of national resilience and preparedness. As part of this, there will definitely be a focus on this whole-society and whole-system resilience and how we can improve it. It is part of the suite of measures that the previous Government were looking at. I think it could go a lot further but it was essentially the correct idea.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can the Minister tell the House which companies have the contract for this service? Is Fujitsu one of them?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Fujitsu does have a role in the development of the UK’s emergency alert system and continues to play a small role in system maintenance. The maintenance contract is scheduled for renewal in October 2025, with the commercial process beginning in the summer of next year. At the time of retender, any potential supplier would need to bid via the Government’s procurement protocols.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should be commended on his promotion of this system and on making sure that it has been pursued by various Governments. I was disappointed to hear the response that the system is not to be tested regularly and frequently, not least for the reason he gave, which is that people may not understand what these texts are about. There are more likely, frankly, to believe they are being defrauded than they are being provided with genuine information by the state in the middle of an emergency. Are the Government prepared to reconsider the frequency of that testing, to make sure that people are included and understand what the system is about?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will feed that point back to the department, but I did not say there will not be further testing. I said that one is not scheduled currently, but the point was very well made.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether the House is aware that there is increasing scientific interest in the effect of heat on human beings. We are living in a world that is getting hotter, and recent studies such as that produced by the Physiological Society indicate that measures will need to be taken. Will my noble friend the Minister undertake to ensure that this Cabinet sub-committee considers the question of heat resilience and whether emergency responses of the kind we have been discussing in this exchange can be applied to situations where heat is the issue, rather than some other cause?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend rightly highlights the danger of heat in terms of its potential impact on the public. As he and other noble Lords will be aware, the summer of 2022 saw the highest ever recorded temperature in the UK. The capability was not in use at the time, but this is an example of the type of event in which an alert would be considered. More recent summers have been somewhat milder, but this is the type of incident that would be appropriate for the use of emergency alerts.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way to ensure that the systems are effective would be to have a proper national resilience command and control structure that carried out policy development, gaming, resilience and stress testing, and ensured not only that the technical systems work but that the personnel involved in them were familiar with all the challenges that would face them in the real event?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Some of the issues the noble and gallant Lord refers to were highlighted by the Covid inquiry module 1. The Government have committed to respond to that within six months and I anticipate that the very valid point he makes will be addressed in that response.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, if I might come back, following on from the noble and gallant Lord’s question, can my noble friend give us some indication as to how quickly a localised emergency alert can be authorised? I understand that a whole series of processes has to be gone through, including finding the Cabinet Office duty officer, potentially in the middle of the night. I am sure they are constantly available, but the question is: can it be done in real time, quickly? Obviously, an emergency situation develops very quickly.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
All local resilience forums can request an emergency alert. In my experience, having chaired the London Resilience Forum, the duty officers from the Government are indeed available and able to respond and carry out this type of action very quickly, as would be appropriate given the speed of some incidents that might occur.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I have the good fortune to have a house in France in a small village where the mayor has collected all the mobile numbers of everybody in the village and as a result I can sit here and, were I looking at my phone—of course I am not looking at my phone when I am in the Chamber—I could tell there was a heatwave in the part of France I am living in and that I should take the following remedial steps. Does the Minister agree that perhaps one way the Government could deal with this would be by asking people to join these groups locally?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point and what he describes is a good example of community resilience and how communities can best prepare to support each other during an emergency or an incident such as a heatwave. The Government are committed to community resilience and will consider this further as part of the wholescale review of resilience that will commence, potentially later this year.
Israel: Arms Sales
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have received following their announcement to restrict certain arms sales to Israel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as was expected and as is understandable, the range of reactions to our suspension of some export licences to Israel illustrates the depth of feeling about the conflict. Our licensing criteria state that the Government will not issue export licences if there is a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. We have concluded that there is a clear risk. Our priority remains achieving a ceasefire in Gaza with hostages released, civilians protected and aid flooding in.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will she reflect on the fact that this announcement coincided with the cold-blooded and barbaric murder of six Israeli hostages by Hamas? What sort of message does this send to Hamas and its backers in Iran? Also, what does it say to Israel, a democratic ally, which is basically being accused by us of being a rogue state when it is defending itself against terror?
May I ask the Minister a question about licences? Out of 350, only 30 have been suspended, on the grounds of humanitarian problems and the treatment of detainees, but surely if there was a serious legal problem, they would have all been suspended. Can the Minister confirm to the House that this decision was based specifically on legal advice and not on internal Labour politics?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord wants to talk about internal Labour Party politics, he has come to the right place. I have spent a lot of time on this topic, and I can assure him at this Box—and he must hold me to this—that this decision had nothing to do with internal Labour Party politics, and neither should it.
On the 30 licences, as the noble Lord is probably aware, there are a number of licences. Not all the items the licences are subject to could be used either in Gaza or for actions that might compromise international humanitarian law, such as food-testing kits. That is the reason why 30 specific licences have been dealt with as they have.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, had all the licences been suspended, the accusation from the Benches opposite would have been valid. It is because those 320 licences have not been suspended that we are assured that we are prepared and willing to help Israel defend itself against Iran or Hezbollah, or whatever external forces may be intent on destroying the State of Israel. Does my noble friend not agree that that confirms that this process has been entirely proper?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This decision came at the conclusion of a process which the Foreign Secretary initiated upon his appointment, where a review was commenced. The earliest opportunity to make both Houses aware of the conclusion of that review was on the first day we returned, earlier this week, and that is the reason for the timing of the announcement.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, yesterday the House debated a new Holocaust learning centre in Westminster and much was made of the vacuous statement “never again”. Today we hear of support for arms for Ukraine. We supply them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries that kill their opponents. Why do the Government undermine protection for a state that needs them for self-defence to combat murderous terrorists whose avowed aim is to kill Jews? Has she read the American book? Everyone loves dead Jews; the living, not so much.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the UK remains and will always be committed to supporting Israel’s security and wider regional stability. The Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this with his Israeli counterparts on a recent visit to Tel Aviv on 19 August with the French Foreign Minister, and our position has not changed in this respect. We continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and to take action against terrorism, provided it does so in accordance with international law.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Foreign Secretary in his Statement said that the commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export licensing decisions, and he justified the decision to exempt the F35 equipment on other criteria. So does it not clearly follow from that the Government could, had they wished, have decided against a ban on the ground that Israel is acting in self-defence against an organisation committed to its destruction and recognised by our own Government as a terrorist organisation? In the light of that, will the Minister now accept that when she told your Lordships’ House on Tuesday that the Government were required to suspend certain export licences, what she said was both factually inaccurate and grossly misleading?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No, I do not accept that. The legal test we have is that there is a clear risk, and the advice we received was that in the case of these 30 licences it could present a clear risk—not that it has done, not that there is a breach, but that there is a clear risk. This is not an embargo on sales of arms to Israel. I am fairly confident that the noble Lord will know that the case of the F35s is different. We supply components which are part of a global supply chain, and stopping those components being provided could cause very difficult disruption and there would be an impact on global security.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we support the Government’s moves regarding the situation in Gaza, but I hope all parts of the House have been shocked by the extreme violence of the outpost settlers in the West Bank. The outpost settlers are acting contrary to international law but also to Israeli law. Shin Bet’s director said in August that the violence was being provided to support legitimacy and praise by extreme elements of the Israeli Government. Will the Government assure the House that they are looking at potential restrictions of licences and sanctions of those parts of the Israeli Government which are actively, under the decision by the internal security service of Israel, facilitating the outpost settler violence?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
All I am going to say on that for today is that we recognise Israel’s need to defend itself against security threats, but we are deeply worried about the methods that have been employed and by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and by the ongoing military operation in the West Bank and the attacks there. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread in the West Bank. The risk of instability is serious; there is a need for de-escalation and that need is urgent.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the decision to reduce arms supplies to Israel will offer great encouragement to Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. In view of the importance of that decision, can we see the full details of the advice that the Government received which led them to this very unfortunate decision?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to read and consider the summary published alongside the Statement on Monday. That will probably answer many of his concerns.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Howard’s question, I recall, when I was a Minister in Defence, having to look at export licence applications and requests. You had to determine what was being supplied, make a linkage to where it was going and then make a reasoned assumption as to what it might be used for. To the best of our ability, we tried to apply these tests objectively. I do not recall any reference to other criteria entering that assessment process. When did this change?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The assessment process has not changed; this assessment was made on the basis of clear risk and our ability to have sight in theatre of what was being done, alongside reports about issues of aid and treatment of detainees. I believe this is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government. We have not had sight, rightly, of the legal advice provided to them and their decisions are for them to comment on—we make no criticism of or comment on that. The decision we made was based on the advice we received.
House of Lords: Composition
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what plans they have for the removal of excepted hereditary peers from the House of Lords and (2) whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare my interest. The question is as follows: to ask His Majesty’s Government, first, what plans they have for the removal of excepted Peers from the House of Lords and, secondly, whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s Question referred to excepted hereditary Peers. Today, probably as we speak, the Government are introducing a Bill in the other place to deliver on our clear manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill was included in the King’s Speech, which was debated at length in your Lordships’ House. It will complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament. The Government are keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with your Lordships about this legislation and our other manifesto commitments on reforming this House.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that Answer, but is it not a bit shoddy that she was prepared to speak to the press yesterday and had to be summoned to the Dispatch Box today rather than make a Statement to the House about one of the most important issues facing this House—namely, its composition? This is a high-handed, shoddy political act, removing some of our most senior and experienced Peers, such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others who have held some of the most senior positions in government and commerce.
Why have the Government and the noble Baroness not sought any discussions or consultation among the parties? Twenty-five years ago, countless debates and questions took place in the House and, ultimately, we finished up with a consensual way forward agreed among the parties. Why are there no proposals to remove those Peers from the House who very rarely come, rather than those who have shown an active commitment over many years? I hope that the noble Baroness will now engage with the usual channels to find a suitable day for a debate on the Floor of the House to discuss proper reform of the House of Lords.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have always admired the noble Lord’s ingenuity, and never more so than today. It is a bit of a reach to say that a Statement should have been made to this House first. This was first debated around the hereditary Peers by-elections, it was debated following the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment, and I have had numerous conversations since the election and will continue to do so. A Bill has been introduced in the other place today; it will come to your Lordships’ House and we will have our discussions in the normal way. The noble Lord says that there was agreement previously. It was because there was no agreement during the passage of that Bill that further discussions took place and temporary arrangements were made on a transitional basis to exempt some hereditary Peers from the legislation. This will complete that process. I remind the noble Lord that my comment to the press about the Bill’s introduction—made in the normal way—started by recognising the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers have made to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that my party is committed to further reform of this House, including the introduction of an elected element, which we first declared as party policy in 1911. I also remind the House that, during the last Parliament, a number of Conservatives—who know very well who they are—spent a great deal of time complaining that the Liberal Democrats were overrepresented in this House because of our small numbers in the Commons. It is now quite clear that one of our most immediate problems is the overrepresentation of Conservatives compared to their small numbers in the Commons. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there have been any discussions so far about a voluntary reduction in the number of Conservatives in this House to reflect the new situation since the election?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have had no approaches from the party opposite about its numbers. On the noble Lord’s point about wider Lords reform, for the last 25 years one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done—but no one agrees on what “everything” is. A piecemeal approach is by far the better way. The party opposite complains about Lords reform, but in the years that it was in government the only proposal it came forward with was to move the House of Lords to York.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, could the Leader of the House advise me whether this was included in the Labour Party manifesto, what the result of the general election was and what majority was achieved by the Labour Party? On a more serious note, can she confirm that, if any hereditary Peers were thought fit to be appointed as life Peers, that could be done?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This was part of the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. Noble Lords may recall that the passage of my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill to end the hereditary Peers by-elections was blocked. Perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years ago that might have been a better way forward, but that opportunity has now passed. The election result was quite clear. I can confirm that, if Members leave this House as hereditary Peers, there is no block at all to them coming back as life Peers if their party wishes to introduce them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, on the commitments in the manifesto and what the party opposite said about House of Lords reform, what has happened to the proposal to expel everyone after they reach the age of 80? Why has that been dropped from the Bill? Is not the answer that this is a naked attempt to disable opposition in this House from a Government who have a majority in the other place, although this place is the only part of Parliament which properly scrutinises legislation? The Government are undermining our ability to carry out our duties effectively.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord’s ingenuity is always impressive. He knows that that is not the case. He also knows that the Labour Party manifesto at the last election was the only one I have seen in recent years that praised the work of this House—we continue to do so—and recognised the valuable work that it has done. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said that one of the important things in this House is incremental reform. As I have said before—I think the noble Lord was present when this was repeated at least twice in debate on the King’s Speech—the House will be consulted on the manifesto commitments on retirement age and participation.
The manifesto also talked about immediate actions on particular issues. The other commitments of course remain, and they will come forward in due course, after discussions and dialogue across the House.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, although the Minister is very good on these matters, she does not quite seem to understand that her party is dabbling with constitutional reform. Surely she, among many others, agrees that when it comes to constitutional reform it is absolutely essential that there is agreement between all parties, otherwise we spend years and years in useless argument, getting nowhere. Does the noble Baroness not accept on this issue, as she has just learned from some of the responses she has just had, that once you touch on constitutional issues, the time has come to try to work out a common way forward—the future common ground—in a sensible, mature and adult way, and not get lost in party ding-dong?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is being a little patronising in saying that I do not understand constitutional issues. I will be happy to reach consensus, where it is possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, a quarter of a century ago there was eventually a consensus that transitional arrangements would be made for the remaining hereditary Peers.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Would the Minister use this opportunity to end another long-standing anomaly whereby the wives of Lords and Barons have the title “Lady”, which confuses them with those who have earned the title? This should end, or change so that our husbands, or the partners of women Peers, also get some sort of honorific title.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think there are mixed views across the House about this issue—I have to say that Mr Smith might not appreciate having a title. It does seem an anomaly, although not one that overly concerns the House. However, I note the noble Baroness’s comments.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House how many from the hereditary Peerage in this House are women?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I recall the Countess of Mar from some years ago, and there may have been one other Member of the House of Lords who was a female hereditary Peer. There is none currently and, as far as I am aware, none is eligible for election in the hereditary Peers by-elections.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I return to the extraordinary decision to use the standing orders of this House in order to avoid our statutory obligations in relation to the holding of excepted Peers’ by-elections? When I raised it before, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she was confident that that move did not breach the law. However, it has since been suggested to me that the legal advice she received was more ambivalent on the matter. Is she willing to publish the legal advice on which that extraordinary decision to avoid our statutory obligations was based and, in doing so, show respect for the rule of law?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
When that decision was taken, it was entirely and completely within the rule of law. The legislation states that the House should hold by-elections. How it holds them is a matter for this House. I was approached by Members from across the House, including from Front Benches, who said that they wished that those by-elections would not take place during the passage of the Bill. Therefore, the House made the decision, under its Standing Orders, to pause the by-elections for a period of 18 months. That is entirely within the law and was done with the full agreement of this House.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, one of the benefits of this House is that some of us have been around a long time. I was much involved in the decision 25 years ago. The truth was that Viscount Cranborne, now the Marquess of Salisbury, had tied the Labour Government up in knots. The decision to allow hereditary Peers to remain was a way of untying that knot, with a solemn promise that legislation would be brought forward for proper reform of the House of Lords. I am afraid that simply to abandon the deal made 25 years ago without that substantial reform of the Lords is a sham.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point, but I would expect him to make it because he is committed to an elected House. It is interesting that, when the debate was going through the House of Lords a quarter of a century ago, there was concern from a large number of hereditary Peers who were in your Lordships’ House at the time, and in order to smooth the passage of the Bill, arrangements were made that 92 hereditary Peers would remain on a hereditary basis. On that basis, Lord Cranborne was sacked from his job as Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was put in his place—he was perhaps a beneficiary of that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point that constitutional reform should be made with care and consideration, and 25 years seems a fair amount of care and consideration.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt I should say that I was the one who proposed that we look at the by-election matter. I have repeatedly made clear, both from that Dispatch Box as Leader and since, that I believe the best way forward for this House certainly in areas of constitutional change is by consensus, and not on the basis of divisive and partisan legislation.
There is a further and wider point. It is a courtesy and a duty to Parliament for Ministers to come to Parliament, and certainly to an affected House, to make a Statement on novel legislative matters before they are spewed out in the Guardian, the Times and other media. I do not know whether it was a decision of the noble Baroness that the pre-spin be done in this way; perhaps she was instructed by No. 10 not to make a Statement in this House. However, it was unlike her and not typical, and the misjudgment not to make a Statement in this House did not reflect her normal courtesy. I welcome some of the things that she said, so will she repeat her undertaking to enter into discussions now in the spirit of consensus? My door is open, as is, I am sure, the noble Earl’s.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments on hereditary Peers’ by-elections; both he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have approached me. In terms of constructive debate, I spoke to the Cross-Bench Peers yesterday and I would welcome an invitation to speak to the Conservatives. I do not think the noble Lord can do so as a matter of course, as it is by invitation, so I would welcome an invitation too.
There was a bit of faux anger on his part about a Statement to this House. This issue was in the Labour Party manifesto. During the King’s Speech debate, it was the subject of almost the entire content of the noble Lord’s response to my comments in the constitutional debate. When a Bill is introduced into either House, it is normal for a comment to be made. I wanted to ensure that it was on the record that we welcomed and appreciated the contribution made by hereditary Peers, and that is why it is in the Statement. It is a perfectly normal way of doing things. It did not come as a surprise to the noble Lord. It has been debated in this House on many occasions and I am sure the dialogue will continue.
Arrangement of Business
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I became Government Chief Whip eight weeks ago, I was pleased to be able to announce so soon after my appointment the recess dates up until we return after the Christmas Recess in January 2025. I am now going to announce the remaining recess dates up until we return after the Summer Recess next year. This, I believe, will be helpful to Members of the House and the staff who work here. As ever, they are subject to the progress of business. There is no need to write them down; my office has made the usual notice available in the Royal Gallery, and I will shortly email a note to all noble Lords in their parliamentary inboxes.
As I have said, I have already announced the recess dates up until the end of the Christmas Recess. If business runs as expected, the rest of the planned recess dates will be as follows. We will rise for the February Recess at the end of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February. We will then rise for the Easter Recess at the end of Thursday 3 April and return on Tuesday 22 April. I expect the Whitsun Recess to start at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May, with the House returning on Monday 2 June. Finally, I anticipate that the Summer Recess will start at the end of business on Thursday 24 July, and that the House will return on Monday 1 September next year. In future I will of course give noble Lords as much notice as I can of recess dates, but I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I have gone quite far in announcing them a year in advance.
Before I sit down, I also want to highlight the time limits for today’s debates. Given the large number of speakers for both debates, the time limits are tight for individual Back-Bench contributions. The first debate, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is limited to one and a half hours, and Back-Bench contributions are limited to two minutes. The second debate, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is limited to three and a half hours, and Back-Bench contributions should be limited to four minutes.
All noble Lords should adhere to these absolute time limits. When the clock shows two minutes and four minutes respectively, their time is up. This will ensure adequate time for Opposition Front-Bench and ministerial responses. I have asked the Whips to intervene if contributions are exceeding these limits to protect the time for the Front-Bench responses. I am sure that noble Lords will be mindful of that in their speeches.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for giving early notice of these matters. I assume that there will be no fixture for Millwall in the first week of September next year.
The noble Lord sent out a recent letter about misinformation. I will not repeat what we have said about lack of information and the lack of a Statement—the Hansard record on that stands—but it would be informative and helpful in terms of building consensus if the noble Lord could consider very positively an early debate on the matter of reform of the House of Lords, which might actually inform discussions in the other place.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Lord very much for his comments and for those points. We have just had the PNQ where we discussed reform of the House of Lords. I am sure that the House has heard the Leader; we have heard the requests, and we will obviously consider those and come back to the noble Lord through the usual channels.
Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [HL]
Thursday 5th September 2024
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]
Thursday 5th September 2024
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a non-executive director of the London Stock Exchange and an investor in funds holding listed investment companies.
Budget Responsibility Bill
Thursday 5th September 2024
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Budget Responsibility Act 2024 View all Budget Responsibility Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2024 - (4 Sep 2024)
Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Ofsted
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
The improvement in our schools under the last Conservative Government reflected a combination of high autonomy—we trusted our school and trust leaders to know the answers for their school and their community—and high accountability, so that the interests of children are protected and clear action is taken if a school is underperforming. That action is led by our best school trusts, and that is why our international rankings in England in reading, maths and science have all risen, while in Labour-run Wales they have sunk. It feels like these principles, which have driven success and opportunity for our children, are being eroded, and the changes being proposed to Ofsted inspections require further explanation.
I acknowledge that the Government say standards will rise as a result of the changes they are proposing, but school leaders and parents need to know how. Can the Minister explain what will actually be new on the new school report cards? There is an enormous amount of information and publicly available data on schools, and there is obviously a great deal of detail in the existing Ofsted reports. What is the gap that the Government have identified and what is the problem they are trying to solve? What evidence does the Minister have that the regional improvement teams proposed by the Government will be more effective than strong academy trusts in turning around underperforming schools? Finally, how will decisions on interventions in underperforming schools be taken between now and September 2025?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
In response to the noble Baroness’s first remarks, I agree that teachers and school leaders deserve enormous congratulation on the improvements that they have made in schools, and this Government are committed to supporting them to achieve even higher standards for all our pupils.
The announcement that the Government have made alongside Ofsted is the removal of the single headline grade for Ofsted inspections, something that provided a relatively low level of information but of course had enormously high stakes for schools. In doing that, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that parents have the information they need to be able to make decisions for their children, and that schools have the information to enable them to improve. That is why we will work with schools, parents and young people themselves, and Ofsted will lead this to help to develop the report cards that will provide more useful information.
The noble Baroness was, understandably, particularly interested in the impact on intervention. To be absolutely clear, where Ofsted identifies serious concerns with a school, the current situation whereby the Secretary of State can ensure that a maintained school becomes an academy or a failing academy is forced to become part of an academy trust remains. There is no change there but where schools could benefit from improvement, the development of regional improvement teams, apart from an early structural intervention in the management of schools, gives us an additional way to promote improvement in our schools and make sure that all children, wherever they are learning, are gaining the highest standards and schools are being held to account for delivering those.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome the changes to Ofsted inspections and applaud the Government for the speedy way they have acted. Following the tragic suicide of Mrs Perry, noble Lords will recall that the review of what happened found that Ofsted had acted in a way that was
“defensive and complacent rather than reflective and self-critical”.
For us, school improvement is not about wielding a big stick—it is about collaboration, support and valuing schools and helping them to get better. How does the Minister see well-being and mental support of staff being provided during an inspection?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to outline the comments made by the coroner in the case of the tragic death of Ruth Perry and by the Education Select Committee in another place about the impact of the single headline grade in those circumstances. That is part of the reason for the Government’s decision to remove that single headline grade, while maintaining a wealth of information from the Ofsted inspection in the report card that is being developed.
I will be frank with the noble Lord. Having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection both in schools and children’s social care, I think the inspections will always bring pressure on to schools and other settings, and so they should. The point is whether they are bringing pressure to good effect. During its Big Listen process, Ofsted has also had the opportunity to consider how to maintain that rigorous inspection and accountability process but to do that in a way, as the noble Lord says, that focuses on accountability and improvement but does not put undue stress on to schools and head teachers.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that considerable good practice is available internationally on how best to inspect and evaluate schools and that there is enormous understanding within the profession about how best to improve our schools? On that basis, I congratulate my Government on making this early decision. In response to the noble Baroness opposite about what question the Government are trying to answer with this, I think they are trying to answer that question of unrealistic, unreasonable pressure on individuals in schools from that headline judgment. If it did nothing else other than prevent any other head teacher taking their own life, it would be absolutely worth doing.
Having been a teacher myself, I know that all teachers welcome engagement with those authorities which seek to assist them to improve in their practice. I am confident—and I hope the noble Baroness agrees—that a move towards a balanced scorecard, engaging the profession and looking at best practice internationally is absolutely the way to ensure that we have an increasing number of self-improving schools for all our young people.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend, particularly on the points about how very good existing school leaders can support school improvement more widely and about learning from international experience. I know that Ofsted, in its consideration of improvement of the education inspection framework, will reflect on that, as will the Government. One reason for saying that it is a good idea to introduce the regional improvement teams in the way in which the Government are suggesting is because that enables us to build on the expertise of leaders in academies and other schools to support those schools which need to improve to be able to do so. In some cases, it will be necessary to change the management arrangements of schools but, short of that, much can be done to bring good practice to bear on those schools that need improvement, and we should make use of that capacity across the system.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister agree that sometimes too much information makes it very difficult for people to understand what the situation is? I am not particularly one way or the other about a single word, but I think it is very important for parents to see in very short terms what they can help with. I have to say to the previous questioner that I do not believe that all teachers are always happy about pressure to improve the circumstances. Can the Minister assure me that the reports will now be written in such a way that there will be a couple of lines which emphasise the things that need to be done; otherwise, I fear we will be messed up by too many words?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I suspect Members of this House understand the danger of being messed up by too many words. This is the beginning of a process, so the removal of the single headline grade still leaves four subheadings in the important areas of quality of education, behaviour, personal development, and leadership and management. The process for developing the single report card will, as he rightly argues, involve parents alongside teachers and others in determining the information they really need and how it is presented in a digestible and understandable way. I can assure the noble Lord that this will also, as will Ofsted’s broader reports, include areas where the school needs to improve so that everybody can be clear about what needs to happen and there is that maintained accountability for schools to continue improving.
Housing: Modern Methods of Construction
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington of Fulham
That this House takes note of the role of Modern Methods of Construction in the housing construction sector.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate and to propose this Motion. As many noble Lords will be aware, my noble friend Lord Moylan won the ballot for this debate, but he has been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench and so is unable to stand where I am standing. Fear not: he is on the list of speakers so he will get his two minutes’ worth to say what really should be said by me standing where I am. He is chairman of the Built Environment Select Committee and chaired our inquiry into modern methods of construction. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee during that inquiry, which is one of the reasons he asked me to speak today.
This debate comes at a time when our country is in desperate need of more housing. The previous Government had a target of 300,000 homes per annum. As I understand it, the new Government have a target of 1.5 million homes over the term of the Parliament, which noble Lords with a ready reckoner will quickly work out is the equivalent of 300,000 per annum, possibly back-loaded. There is considerable doubt, given the demographics of our country, whether either figure—300,000 or 1.5 million—is enough. It is certainly the minimum we need, but even so it has not been achieved in recent years. We got over 200,000 recently, but it looks as though this year the figure will be nearer 150,000. There is a strong case that we need an increase of 400,000 homes a year.
The problems in achieving this target have bedevilled housing Ministers for generations: our planning system, skills shortages in the building trades, and sometimes violent local opposition to new housing. MMC, as I shall call modern methods of construction for speed, could have a role in solving at least some of those problems. With MMC homes can be built fast, or faster than using traditional methods on-site, and it would go a long way towards resolving the dire shortage of skilled construction workers, whether they are bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, roofers or carpenters.
Perhaps I ought to explain what MMC is. Those of us of a certain age will remember prefabs, which after the Second World War were used to urgently house people made homeless by the Blitz. They were factory-built homes that could be transported on the back of a lorry to parks and open spaces, where they were then connected to the services—drains, water, electricity and gas. I remember many of them in Chiswick, where I was brought up. They were much loved by the tenants who lived in them, possibly because they were placed on public open spaces and had small gardens.
MMC is a modern version of that idea. The homes, or the components that are assembled to make up a home, are factory-built and then transported to the building site, which is preprepared with services such as foundations, sewerage, water and electricity. There are seven categories of MMC, and in ascending order they require increasing amounts of assembly on-site. I propose to concentrate only on types 1 and 2. The first is when the unit or home is fully finished in the factory and needs only to be lowered on to the foundations at the site and connected to the services. Type 2 is best described as a flat-pack version of type 1—or an IKEA tribute act—where the components of the structure are stuck together on-site. The other five MMC types have some benefits but require much more work to assemble them.
The advantages of MMC over traditional building methods are essentially that less skilled work is required on the site because the building work is done in a factory-controlled environment. This has major quality-control advantages, and therefore less snagging after completion, which is the curse of the building industry. The people building the home in the factory can be trained and supervised to a much higher standard, and use can be made of modern production techniques such as 3D printing. There are of course logistical benefits: building materials can be delivered in bulk and stored at the factory to be used as required.
However, there are problems. It requires a lot of capital investment to build the factory, train the workforce, establish reliable supply chains and buy the high-tech equipment required. If the factories can attract only small numbers of orders and no long-term commitments to place more, the unit costs of the homes are high—certainly as high as building homes in the conventional way. It is a bit of a vicious circle: high prices lead to few orders, and few orders lead to even higher prices. So it is perhaps not surprising that many of the companies that entered into this market have gone bust or just packed up and gone away.
The only way of solving this problem is to guarantee the suppliers of MMC homes a sufficiently large order book. Then we might end up with a virtuous circle, of full order books leading to highly competitive unit prices, giving speed of construction and higher quality. Why has that not happened? There has been resistance from planners, resistance from insurance companies and warrantee providers, and, in many cases, resistance from the big housebuilders. Last but not least, there has been vocal opposition from local communities concerned at dozens or hundreds of identical box homes being foisted on them.
Planning consent seems to be a major problem in some parts of the country. MMC should not find it more difficult to get planning permission than traditional housing, but there may be resistance by planners to new ideas, concern about ease of maintenance or worries about design quality. Perhaps building blocks of flats in urban areas using MMC should not cause a concern to planning authorities or to local residents, but, after Grenfell, the industry will need to demonstrate that MMC is as safe as, or safer than, conventional building methods.
The image and anticipation of tower blocks made up of factory-built units, identical and slotted together, is off-putting, so quality of design is vital for getting public acceptance. Even tower blocks need to be well designed. A beautiful tower designed by a talented architect can be a delight—you have only to look at some of the commercial and residential blocks designed by Mies van der Rohe—but, equally, housing estates or new towns of identical or near-identical homes are guaranteed to raise objections and opposition, which slows the planning process and, in worst cases, can blight a whole district. Good design makes getting planning consent easier and community acceptance more likely.
Variety of design is also important. The Built Environment Committee was told that MMC could be adapted to any finish. That may well be so, but the same unit with a brick finish, or tiles or wood cladding or whatever, will still be the same unit—rather like, in the immortal words of Sarah Palin, putting lipstick on a pig. What is needed is to incorporate brilliant design, with a wide variety of styles and floor-plans, as well as finishes, that respect the traditional materials of the region, to gain acceptance by planners and local communities.
We know from experience with MMC that the problems are not going to solve themselves, but solving them could bring massive benefits, with well-built, well-designed, varied houses and flats fitting into their communities, providing much-needed homes at a smaller price than traditional building methods and delivered much faster. It is worth noting that both the Netherlands and Germany use MMC extensively and with considerable success, so these problems can be resolved.
However, the industry cannot solve the problems on its own, nor can local authorities, with the budget and planning constraints they have. It will take a concerted effort by the Government, and perhaps Homes England, to ensure that the flow of orders for these homes allows for the capital investment required in the factories. Budget constraints must not be allowed to lose design quality and variety of floor-plan and materials, all of which will push up the cost. That will guarantee failure, through both the bankruptcy of the MMC companies and rejection by the local communities.
I guess the real question of this debate is whether the new Government are committed to acting as a midwife for this industry, helping it into the brave new world of rapid, cost-effective homebuilding, with all the financial support, design encouragement and tearing up of red tape that that entails. I look forward to this debate and, in particular, to the Minister’s reply, which I am sure will lay out the Government’s policy towards MMC.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the housing sector is struggling. It is universally acknowledged that the country does not have enough affordable homes. This Government have committed to solve the housing crisis for good, but how best to do that where previous Governments have failed? The shortage of labour supply means that traditional building methods cannot deliver housing targets, and traditional private builders have shown that they cannot meet the need.
There is a consensus that MMC must be a major part of the solution, but delivering MMC has been challenging. Some companies have gone bust. Against a backdrop of insolvencies across the construction sector, the perception of MMC has suffered disproportionately. There has been a lack of clear strategy surrounding MMC. A long-term housing plan could provide the certainty to invest in MMC and deliver the Government’s ambitious housing targets.
Social housing must clearly play a central role. Housing associations are planning to build, via MMC, about 10% of the new build currently forecast by the regulator. With the right mix of low-cost incentives and support, that proportion could double.
The recent National Housing Federation survey found supplier insolvency to be the biggest risk to uptake. The Government underwriting risk contracts would have an immediate effect on MMC delivery.
The House of Lords Built Environment Committee’s inquiry into MMC urged the Government to step back and set achievable goals and develop a coherent strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave a thorough and fair picture of what we found. The previous Government committed to a £10 million-backed MMC task force, but it never met. Will the Minister commit the new Government to a central body dedicated to research, training and promotion that will allow MMC to flourish. Will the newly established New Towns Taskforce embed MMC in its delivery plans? At the next spending review, will my noble friend press for a long-term plan for new and existing social homes, including specific policy steps to increase the use of MMC in the social housing sector?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, via the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I note that MMC are already used successfully in student and hotel accommodation in this country.
I shall focus on two things, the first of which is fire safety. Yesterday, the Grenfell inquiry final report was published. From these Benches, our hearts go out to those who lost family members and friends and, of course, their homes and everything in them. Fire safety standards must be at the heart of modern building methods. As importantly, the recommendations of both the Grenfell inquiry and the Hackitt report should be implemented, so that maintaining and adapting all buildings is always done in the context of fire safety.
Secondly, all new homes from now on should be built to M4(2), or lifetime, standards. This is not just about disabled people, although we certainly need to be able to live in and visit homes, whether owned or rented, that meet our needs. Shockingly, well over 90% of homes do not. I am talking about the homes we need to have as we get older. Habinteg Housing Association’s research shows that M4(2) significantly reduces the cost of care assistance, because people can manage for much longer in their own homes with level access, grab rails, wet rooms et cetera. But there is a further benefit too: staying in your own home, which is what people really want to do, delays the need for expensive residential care. There are typical savings of over £20,000 for basic home care services in unadapted homes, and considerably more in residential care. Lifetime standards would save substantial public money in the NHS, and in welfare too. The extra cost for building is well under 10% yet the quality of life and lifetime savings to individuals and the state make it an obvious thing to do.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a civil engineer, both in practice and as an academic, at Cambridge University, and as a consultant to Laing O’Rourke, the company that pioneered MMC in the construction industry. I am currently a member of the House’s Select Committee on the Built Environment; I was not a member when that committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, undertook its short inquiry on MMC for housing, culminating in its excellent letter to the Government.
However, I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which in 2018 undertook an inquiry highly relevant to today’s debate, its report being entitled Off-Site Manufacture for Construction: Building for Change. That report concluded that off-site manufacture, synonymous with MMC,
“provides clear and tangible benefits which make a compelling case for its widespread use”.
Recognising these benefits, in the Autumn Budget of 2017 the Government announced a “presumption in favour” of off-site manufacture for five specific government departments: transport, health and social care, education, the MoJ and the MoD. Significantly, that presumption in favour was not stated as applying to MHCLG. For infrastructure generally, there have been many success stories: high-rise buildings, hospitals and schools are increasingly being built with MMC, demonstrating excellent design, significantly faster and higher-quality construction, and less waste.
The Science and Technology Committee heard that a significant barrier to MMC for house construction at scale was the need for longer lead times: the housebuilder has to commit to a production schedule well in advance of actual unit sales, risking that market conditions might deteriorate. This and other barriers could be overcome if there were a substantial guaranteed pipeline of MMC housing across the country—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. My question for the Minister is therefore this: should not MHCLG—and Homes England—confirm its wholehearted support and announce forthwith a presumption in favour of MMC, as five other government departments have done?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support modern construction methods. In February 2003, Lord Prescott published a seminal document, Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. Ministers would be well advised to look at this, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. We then in ODPM promoted off-site construction and committed to encouraging the private sector to invest in factories and new techniques.
In an Oral Question I asked on 8 June 2023, I made the point that you cannot switch factories on and off, and a stable demand is a prerequisite. What stops a big uplift? Both off-site and onsite require new skills and techniques; they are not separate.
I once visited a factory in Birmingham and three weeks later visited a site in Stratford-upon-Avon to see the construction of what I had seen in a factory. It was made clear to me that techniques on both the site and the factory are linked. The Government need to ensure that the new skills are developed, and they need to create demand. Perhaps a density directive, which Lord Prescott used, to stop wasting land could help.
My final point concerns the Building Research Establishment. Lord Prescott and I visited it in its early years of being a Tory privatised body to see examples of modern methods. I had visited one in opposition, when it was government-owned. Given the Grenfell report, the BRE should no be longer be involved in certifying modern methods of off-site construction techniques or products. Such work should be seen to be fully independent and professional.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a King’s Counsel practising in planning law. I have many clients in the housebuilding and construction sector. I am also chair of the advisory group at the property developer SAV.
There is widespread recognition that MMC have a range of important benefits, including, in particular, faster and greener construction of the new homes this country desperately needs. It is therefore both curious and regrettable that this widespread recognition has not yet translated into widespread uptake. I draw attention to the role that the planning system could play in stimulating the critical mass of pipeline and demand necessary for the MMC market to flourish.
By that I do not mean greater planning regulation; there is arguably enough of that already. Instead, I encourage the Government to look to how the planning regime has encouraged greater uptake of custom and self-build housing in recent years, through a combination of legislative targets for local authorities to deliver specific levels of custom and self-build housing; a favourable planning policy climate for that kind of housing; and relief from the community infrastructure levy and VAT for those who develop them. Those measures are generally judged to have been successful in stimulating greater uptake of custom and self-build housing over the past decade. A similar package could help do the same for MMC.
There are also good reasons for inferring that variations between local authority development plans in relation to the standards required of new housing development are having a repressive effect on MMC, the business model of which requires greater consistency. National standards, for example, through national development management policies, may be a solution to this. Such ideas would need to be worked and consulted on thoroughly. The committee’s letter has flagged that there are significant gaps in the understanding of the MMC market, meaning that rushed solutions risk unintended consequences. But there is, in my view, undoubtedly a case to answer for the planning system playing a role, and I encourage the Government to consider it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I have personal experience of building and owning two houses of non-traditional construction. One was built in 2006 of larch, pine and oak with a green roof, solar panels, hemp insulation of the external walls and an internal wall forming a heat sink built of granite recovered from the burnt-out cottage it replaced. Large south-facing windows maximise solar gain and ground-source heating is carried under the floor.
Labour costs were saved by assembling large sections, built to size by expert workmen in comfortable factory conditions. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the difficulty in obtaining a warranty and insurance as a barrier to the uptake of MMC, I had no problem in that regard. As Peers for the Planet pointed out in its briefing for this debate, a fireproofed wood construction brings a 25% reduction in embodied carbon emissions.
The other house, built in 2016, is a Passivhaus—the gold standard of energy-efficient construction—and there were no difficulties with a warranty or insurance. The block-built walls have an external thick layer of high-density expanded polystyrene coated with render. It looks like a traditional house, and blended without objection into a highly prized conservation area. The insulation is under the floor as well as in the walls and roof. The windows and doors are triple-glazed and there is active filtered ventilation. South-facing large windows and smaller windows facing north result in a warm house with no need for heating of any sort for eight months of the year. The solar panels take care of the hot water. The lesson, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed out, is that modern design and innovation is everything, and the sooner the planners and builders get the message, the better.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the speaking time in this debate is two minutes. I apologise for being hard on this, but it is important that we allow everybody the opportunity to speak without cutting short the Minister’s response.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the Built Environment Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which investigated this matter, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, for introducing this debate so helpfully. Deploying modern methods of construction is obviously the way forward, yet the industry has recently been characterised by a succession of business failures and even bankruptcies. Can we still expect the modern methods of construction sector to fulfil its clear potential?
I suggest three prerequisites for success. First, the MMC industry needs a more certain and consistent pipeline of orders. The important stipulation of Homes England and the GLA that a proportion of the affordable homes they fund must be built using MMC techniques needs to be refined to provide greater certainty for the manufacturers. Will the Government’s agencies be more specific as to the appropriate categories of MMC—and, indeed, the systems that have the lowest embedded carbon emissions, such as prefabricated timber frame construction?
Secondly, to comply with the new future homes standard, developers and social landlords will be propelled into using prefabricated homes, because of the greater precision achieved in factory settings. Will the Government be firm in ensuring enforcement of the new standards that will inevitably mean more use of MMC? Thirdly, will the new Skills England give priority to workforce skills for MMC in its much-needed reforms of apprenticeships and training for the construction industry?
With attention to these issues, modern methods of construction can indeed make possible the quantity and quality of new homes this country desperately needs.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have promised 1.5 million new homes for England over the next five years, which will see the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.
When leader of Newport City Council, I held meetings with many MMC companies to examine how we could determine a solution for the acute social housing shortage we faced in the city. Last year the council secured Welsh Government phase 2 homelessness grant funding to increase the supply of affordable social housing, and a development of 12 new ultra-low-carbon high-quality homes on an underused council-owned car park was opened using MMC.
Linc Cymru, Newport City Council and ZEDpods developed a unique low-energy, low-carbon affordable housing scheme for the area. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the housing development in Hill Street, Newport. It was in support of Homewards, a new five-year project from the Royal Foundation of The Prince and Princess of Wales. I am pleased to inform the House that Newport is one of the six flagship locations across the UK working in partnership with Homewards to tackle homelessness and make it rare, brief, and unrepeated.
His Royal Highness said:
“In a modern and progressive society, everyone should have a safe and secure home, be treated with dignity and given the support they need”.
We now have a real opportunity to develop housebuilding at pace, supported by a Government in Westminster who fully believe in a modern and progressive society and will serve the needs of the people across the UK by fixing the foundations for a better future.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for his insightful introduction to the debate, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The previous Government rightly identified MMC as a potential game-changer in addressing our housing needs. As their 2021 commitment to the MMC Taskforce highlighted, there was recognition that MMC could significantly improve the quality, energy efficiency and speed of housing delivery, while reducing waste and addressing the skills shortage within the sector. MMC offers numerous benefits, as we know.
However, while the recognition was there, the execution fell short. The Government’s approach to MMC was marred by a lack of co-ordination and coherent strategy. As highlighted by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee, of which I am a member, public funds were invested, but without a clear plan, measurable objectives or sufficient understanding of the challenges faced by the industry. This disjointed approach led to missed opportunities and the financial collapse of several MMC firms—firms that could have played a pivotal role in addressing our housing needs. The committee’s findings reveal a troubling picture of an industry that has not been given the support or clarity it needs to succeed, particularly in securing insurance, warranties and the necessary regulatory approvals.
Thus far, we have heard little about the detail from the Government, and I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will tell us clearly just how they will address all the particular difficulties with MMC.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his introduction to the debate, and the Committee on the Built Environment for its hard work on this important issue. Clearly, MMC is the way ahead for building, and it has been for a long time. Given the climate in this country, apart from anything else, getting as much done as possible under the cover of a factory makes sense. But, as we have heard today, there are many obstacles to making this the way in which so much building should be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined three areas where the Government could move quite quickly to make a difference. I would add another area, and that is public confidence. There was always a potential problem over the image of prefabricated housing, but gradually that has changed. Not everybody had quite the romantic view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but now prefab houses—HUF HAUS, in particular—have become much sought after. Now the biggest problem will be public confidence in modern methods of building, which will be at an all-time low after the publication of the latest Grenfell inquiry report.
I second the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in looking for a replacement for the Building Research Establishment. The Grenfell report dismissed the BRE as
“marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour”.
Who is going to feel comfortable being asked to buy, or live in, a property that has been overseen by such an organisation? Can the Minister assure us today that the Building Research Establishment will no longer have a role in establishing what materials are safe and what properties are okay for people to live in?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the details that he alluded to. I begin with my thoughts and prayers to all who perished in Grenfell Tower and I pay respect to their loved ones. Grenfell is the context of continuous neglect in social housing provision. With two major fires only last week, we may not be learning the lessons quickly enough, with thousands of family homes remaining unsafe. If we utilise MMC, it must be using material tested to the highest safety standards. Since the 1980s, thousands of homes have been built in Canary Wharf and elsewhere without proper consideration of family needs, so a national housing plan is essential. If MMC meets industry standards, we should utilise it while mandating the strictest regime for the safety and well-being of family homes.
We can look at some of the challenges. Models exist in Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands and China using MMC building cost effectively with energy-efficient homes. Housing is not a building or buildings. It is homes for families across the generations. How will the Government use a national planning framework to secure the highest-quality MMC standards if we are to use it continuously for the well-being of a cohesive community?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have joined your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, but I was not a member for this report.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, has reminded us that this is not the first report that your Lordships’ House has done into MMC, and spelled out what the 2018 report from the Science and Technology Committee concluded. There was also a 2019 report from the other place on modern methods of construction. It seems very strange that the Government did not take up any of the lessons of either of these reports. I am sure that this Government will do better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to one of the big problems—confidence—and I agree with her. This was absolutely underlined by the Competition and Markets Authority, which did a market study into the housebuilding sector, concluding in February 2024. On MMC, it concluded that there is a
“lingering negative stigma amongst consumers, builders, investors, and insurers”.
What will the Government do to overcome this lingering negative stigma? Without overcoming it, MMC will always be dragged down by it.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we all know that we have a serious housing problem in this country. Any serious attempt to increase supply should include modern methods of construction. They do get over the problem of a shortage of traditional skills. They do save time. They improve precision and quality, and they improve productivity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, they are already used extensively in Germany and the Netherlands. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, they are used in this country in student accommodation.
I was therefore extremely disappointed to find that in the list of measures on housing in the Labour Party manifesto—a commendably long list of measures on the supply side—there was no mention of modern methods of construction. It ought to look at this again, particularly because its avowed intention is to get the private sector and the government sector working together. That is what it should do, particularly in this area.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has just made precisely the points that I wanted to make. The time has come for these discordant experiences, this diffuse energy, to be pulled together. The Government must surely accept the role of ringmaster—or whatever other metaphor you want to use—pulling all this together, achieving a foreseeable path forward. I know nothing about building but I do know about homes, and it is urgent and of vital necessity that we crack this one and soon.
I am hoping to hear the Minister say what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said was not in the manifesto, namely that as part of the solution that has to be worked out, an energetic and investing commitment to the MMC aspect of a housebuilding scheme is part of the thinking of the present Government. On the present evidence, I am hoping to hear it in order to resolve a disappointment. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and I have been working with John McAslan + Partners on a very ambitious scheme from the private sector that would provide a real, focused attempt across the country to use, among other ways, these traditional methods. We submitted a lavish document and, more than a month later, have not even had a reply of acknowledgement. Those little things that are lacking need to be made good and a positive way forward, led by the Government, needs to ensue.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have been talking to a number of builders and they all say the same thing: “When we build a home, standard build is cheaper, while meeting the complexity that often comes with awkward and constrained sites”. Steel frames, precast floors and other off-site techniques can speed certain aspects. Pre-manufacture always has a role in high-rise situations, where space is constrained on inner-city sites. MMC is best introduced in institutional settings such as hotels and care homes, where identikit standardisation has value. But when all is said and done, they tell me that MMC is more expensive. Let us not kid ourselves that it is cheaper; it is not.
We must not ignore cost. To meet our national targets, we need to recognise that layering ever more well-meaning but expensive burdens on building, such as CIL, GIRAMS, SANGS, nutrient neutrality, BNG, water neutrality, MVHR and EV—all worthy things in themselves—has cumulatively added £40,000 to the cost of a new family home, before we even start to consider the proposed 50% affordable housing targets on grey belt that will push housing costs even further out of reach. We must have limits on cost.
We will make rapid progress if we prevent the mortgage, warranty and insurance companies discriminating against modern rather than traditional builds. We must make it easier for smaller, family firms to finance perhaps a dozen homes a year using materials sourced locally, and we must roll back the regulatory creep from self-serving national agencies such as Natural England, not councils, that layer ever more onerous, overlapping regulations and undermine the equality of the three levels of sustainability—economy, environment and society—in pursuance of their own judicial activism.
These are the basics to focus on before we spend disproportionate attention on the shiny MMC thing, which diverts focus from getting Britain building.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, MMC can make a big difference in energy efficiency and embodied carbon in buildings. I will give a quick bit of history for 15 seconds. The previous Labour Government, and indeed the coalition Government, had targets for net-zero buildings for homes for 2016. That legislation was about to be enacted when the Government changed and George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, stopped that process. In the meantime, we have had 1.5 million homes built below that standard that need not have been and will have to be retrofitted. That was a national disgrace and probably one of the largest bits of environmental vandalism that we have had in recent years.
The Labour manifesto says two things around this. On page 56, on fuel poverty and net zero, its “Warm homes plan”, which I hugely welcome, says:
“The energy shock of recent years has highlighted the urgent importance of improving energy efficiency in British homes”.
Page 38, on housebuilding, says:
“Labour wants exemplary development to be the norm not the exception. We will take steps to ensure we are building more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience”.
I welcome that and all the aspiration behind it. We have for next year the future homes standard that has been mentioned, but that is not a net-zero commitment in terms of housebuilding. Will that aspiration be improved to return us to what we should have been doing in 2016?
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, we have paid a very heavy price indeed as a country for the combination of the 2008 economic shock, the pandemic and the monumental distraction of Brexit. Thus preoccupied, we have failed to grip many areas of national policy, but housing has been our most grievous and pernicious failure. We now need a holistic framework, an action plan covering every aspect of housing policy, involving all relevant departments.
First and foremost, we need once again to make a substantial investment in social housing, publicly procured. We obviously need a new building standards framework, inter alia embracing 360-degree insulation as well as fire safety. We need to embrace modern construction methods: as in other industries, modularisation and off-site construction has to be more efficient and cost effective. In 2015, China built a 57-storey skyscraper in 19 days. In under 20 years, embracing streamlined processes, China has built 45,000 kilometres of high-speed rail. A modern methods of construction taskforce was announced in the 2021 Budget; can the Minister confirm that it has never met?
We need a national plan to build homes where they are needed, with social and other infrastructure as part of the plan, but there are some don’ts. We must not in any way sacrifice the UK’s precious areas of natural beauty—and please let there be no more featureless box-houses, a hallmark of the most recent past and devoid of any aesthetic. Let us act quickly but with care.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its report and my noble friend Lord Carrington for his introduction. I also declare my interest as set out in the register as a councillor and, previously, a member of the previous Government’s London housing task force.
As with so many issues in the development and housing market, the key is providing confidence to investors, suppliers and prospective workforce that there is a long-term market. Currently, everyone in the housing market lacks certainty, most particularly that they will be able to access land upon which to build. This is exacerbated by the ever-changing regulatory and planning environment. It is no wonder that companies seek to maximise value in the short term and are unwilling to invest in technology and training when they have no long-term visibility.
MMC has significant potential, particularly in our cities, but adoption has been limited to date and tends to focus on the limited area of timber-frame open-panel houses. To really move forward, an investor in MMC will need to be confident that there is a market, which means they are no longer hamstrung by a lack of sites and the delays and unpredictability of the planning system.
It is not that this nor the previous Government do not recognise the need for site availability. However, it is crucial that the detail of government planning proposals delivers sufficient viable sites and gives the industry confidence this will continue. I ask the Minister: how will they ensure that mandatory targets are delivered, particularly in urban areas that have previously delivered so little?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the recently elected Labour Government have proposed that there should be mandatory targets for housebuilding that local authorities must adhere to. The ambition is for 1.5 million houses to be built in the current Parliament, with annual targets of 370,000 units.
This target, which far exceeds recent levels of housebuilding, is comparable to what was achieved in the early post-war years. A large proportion of those houses were council houses, and they were subject to direct procurement, financed by local authorities. They were built mainly by small local building firms, which typically employed their labour on a permanent basis. Nowadays, a few large firms build most of the residential accommodation. They hire their labour on a temporary basis. However, the supply of such skilled labour has shrunk drastically. Moreover, the big firms do not undertake to train their workforce.
It has been widely proposed that, in order to accomplish a revolution in housebuilding and to meet the targets, it will be necessary for builders to adopt modern methods of construction. These will involve a substantial proportion of off-site construction in factories with assembly lines. Contemporary methods of housebuilding are slow and wasteful of materials. They also make inordinate demands on a scarce labour force. It is doubtful whether, if such methods were used preponderantly, any of the targets could be met.
The houses that are so urgently needed must be subject mainly to direct public procurements. Much of the new housing stock would therefore remain in public ownership, albeit that the right of the occupants to buy their houses should be preserved. It was an ideological aversion to public ownership that inspired the Thatcher Governments to promote the right to buy, while preventing councils from investing the proceeds from the sales in replacement buildings. This has been a major factor in creating the current housing crisis.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham for introducing this debate, especially when I had to withdraw due to a change of circumstances. It was a privilege for me to chair the short inquiry into modern methods of construction, undertaken by the Built Environment Select Committee. I add a word of thanks, although time precludes me from naming them all, to the clerks and the team that supported that inquiry when we undertook it.
Ten years ago, modern methods of construction were the future, particularly the top level of MMC, which is modular construction, where a whole unit—a whole home—can be built off-site, more or less, and be delivered to the site. However, in the last couple of years, most of the firms engaged in that activity have either withdrawn from the market or closed. The purpose of our inquiry was to try to find out why.
Time precludes me from explaining at great length why that is, but we certainly found disarray at the heart of government. The policy was good, but the implementation was almost totally absent. Reference has been made to the committee that never met. I also refer to the strange attitude of Homes England, which claimed that it had a strategy in the shape of the five Ss—five words that all began with S—but when we asked for the document that underlaid the strategy, it was not able to produce it. I hope that the new Government will look very carefully at that.
What is the role of government in this? It is very important for the Government to have a regulatory role that unblocks some of the things identified by my noble friend when he introduced the debate. I would be very cautious on one matter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that you cannot switch a factory on and off. Many of these firms are demanding a pipeline but, as he said, every factory needs a pipeline. Why is it that the Government should supply the pipeline in this case, rather than encouraging these firms to go out and find and create their own market?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I say at the outset that I am really grateful that, yesterday, the Government Whips’ Office gave the winders some extra time, but I feel that two minutes for a speech is not making use of the expertise in this Chamber. That said, all the two-minute contributions have been insightful and informative and have, amazingly, captured all the issues around modern methods of construction—and the debate has definitely bounced along. What is striking is that there is a consensus that there is a role for modern construction and agreement about the challenges and barriers to MMC but plenty of suggestions for improvement, which I hope the Minister will take back to her department.
I, too, was a member of the Built Environment Select Committee, which carried out the inquiry, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose contribution it is a pleasure to follow today. It was a wide-ranging, if frustrating, inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, accurately outlined.
It was not that the Government were not putting money into tackling the problem—our usual complaint—but that they had done so in an undirected and haphazard way without a coherent strategy and measurable outcomes, although I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will put up a spirited and informed defence of the previous Government’s advances in modular build, and I genuinely look forward to her contribution.
I turn to the consensus that we have a housing crisis and that modular build could and should be a way to build more homes, more quickly and, more importantly, to the future homes standard. It will add diversity to provision, which is at present monopolised by the big builders.
The number one issue for the industry is the supply chain, which was mentioned by several noble Lords. There are clearly real issues of business survival when you have inconsistent and insufficient demand for your product, unpredictable delays and workforce challenges. In this climate, we have unfortunately had recent experiences of companies going out of business or struggling to continue in business. I really have only one question for the Minister: what is going to change and what plans do the Government have? Will they consider incentivising builders to use MMC by offering tax breaks, reducing VAT on modular homes, or giving tax credits to companies that invest in modular construction? We hear excellent mood music from the Deputy Prime Minister about a revolution in social housing. Will the Government consider setting targets for the construction of modular homes within public housing projects? Will the Government actively use their own land as part of a deal to create more public/private partnerships to build more modular homes and encourage and incentivise councils to do likewise?
The regulatory framework mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others is designed with traditional construction methods in mind, making it more difficult for MMC builders to navigate the approvals process. The regulatory maze can deter builders from opting for modular approaches, even when they might wish to use them. This applies particularly to SME builders. Could the Government consider a fast-track approval process for modular housing developments to encourage quicker construction? Creating a streamlined process aided by national policies specifically for modular homes, as mentioned by a noble Lord—I apologise for forgetting his name—would encourage plans to come forward, reduce delays and overcome the bureaucratic hurdles that are currently faced.
As we heard in the contributions by my noble friends Lord Teverson and Lady Brinton, we feel that the Government should use the future homes standard to ensure that modular-built homes are built to high environmental and safety standards and provide for more lifetime M4(2) homes. In that regard, we disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about building to a lower quality.
There is some disagreement about the overall costs of MMC build versus traditional build but from the perspective of housing associations, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, the upfront costs are more expensive than traditional build. The upfront costs are more pertinent to housing associations than the lifetime costs as they are under considerable financial pressure now and, regrettably, environmental standards are often reduced to keep costs down. Additionally, as more accessible homes take a larger floor plan you get fewer homes for your money, a realistic dilemma that targeted grants could help to solve.
As the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Best, pointed out, there is a skills shortage in construction in general and in MMC specifically. The skill sets and technological challenges are different. The Government should encourage more investment in research and development in MMC technologies to improve efficiency, reduce costs and enhance design options. There are still too many stories of poor construction and construction failure. As we know, this does not need to be the case; we can only envy my noble friend Lord Thomas’s tenants. The risk aversion of warranty and insurance providers plus the reluctance of lenders to provide mortgages on homes built by MMC are further barriers. These issues need unpacking and only the Government can do that and offer strong clear guidance about what will be expected in future.
Finally, to make this shift needs radical change, and the current system is not being sufficiently incentivised to change. We have a risk-averse culture and are cautious in trying new methods. Therefore, the Government have a real role in being the driving force for change. I do not think we can wait for demands from clients and homeowners because for me the other significant barrier, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lady Miller, is public perception and the stigma left over from the prefabricated homes of the past. I remember visiting my Auntie Marion’s prefab in Tenby, south Wales. She lived in it happily until she was forcibly evicted. These two things—cautiousness and public stigma—act as barricades to change.
It seems from the debate that MMC is part of the housing crisis solution, but nobody is dewy-eyed about this. It is certainly not a silver bullet. It could contribute significantly but it needs political will and leadership to create a whole-market approach to ensure that consumers, manufacturers and lenders are all aligned in their aim of embracing MMC to create sufficient demand in the market to grow the approach. Without this alignment and subsequent demand there is no clear catalyst to drive the change needed. Will the Government provide that catalyst and be the ringmaster? If the answer is yes, how and when?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the final report of the Grenfell inquiry was published yesterday. With the leave of the House, I take this opportunity to send my condolences again, and my thoughts and prayers, to a very brave and courageous community in London.
I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham for bringing this Motion to the House, and my noble friend Lord Moylan for his chairmanship of the committee and for chairing this short inquiry. On every side of this Chamber, we know that more homes are desperately needed across the country and that it is crucial that we deliver the right homes in the right places. Ministers should consider carefully whether modern methods of construction have a greater role to play in delivering the homes we need. The Opposition want the Government to deliver enough homes to enable the next generation to get on to the housing ladder, and we will hold Ministers’ feet to the fire on the pledges they made in their manifesto at the last election.
In approaching this debate, it is important to note that we have made significant progress on housing delivery in recent years. Successive Conservative Governments have delivered 2.5 million more homes since 2010 while respecting local communities and ensuring that those homes were built in the right place. We hope that the Government will build on our success and continue to respect local people while prioritising developments on brownfield sites, as we did in government.
At the last election, the Labour Party made a solemn pledge to the British people that it would deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. In doing so, it has set itself a target that people across the country are relying on. We need more homes, and Ministers need a clear plan to deliver them. We on the Opposition Benches will be watching the Government very closely, as they watched us, and pressing for the right homes in the right places, as we delivered in government.
The Labour Party manifesto focuses almost entirely on planning reform to deliver more homes, but industry experts are clear that the challenges we face go well beyond the question of planning law. One crucial challenge is labour supply. The Construction Industry Training Board states in its report Focusing on the Skills Construction Needs that the sector
“needs to recruit the equivalent of 251,000 extra workers over the next five years”,
based on existing predictions. That number is likely to rise if the Government are serious about hitting their targets.
The simple fact is that, if we want to build more homes, we will need hundreds of thousands more construction workers. Even as the party that helped 4 million more people into work since 2010, it is clear to those of us on the Opposition Benches that the supply of labour in the construction sector will be a challenge for the Government. This is where Ministers should perhaps take note of the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, today.
In the face of labour supply challenges, modern methods of construction, which encompass a range of techniques, including off-site fabrication and the use of on-site robots in the construction process, could have an important role to play in housing delivery. Homes England has concluded that modern methods of construction are capable of driving greater efficiency and productivity, which the Built Environment Committee noted in its letter to the department.
One stark example of the impact that modern methods of construction can have is the delivery of the Grange University Hospital, in south Wales. The £350 million hospital building project was completed four months ahead of schedule—which is unusual—with parts of the hospital completed a year ahead of the projected completion date, in large part thanks to the use of modern methods of construction.
Modern methods of construction could have a bright future and an important role in housing delivery, but, as the Built Environment Committee has referenced, the sector has seen a number of businesses fail in recent years. This may be a result of those businesses not benefitting from the necessary economies of scale that other large housebuilders benefit from. Ministers should look at this closely to see whether the Government can support the sector so that it can play a full role in driving efficiency and boosting the delivery of more homes.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope can be addressed in her speech, though I am happy for her to write if not. What assessment have the Government made of the role that modern methods of construction might play in speeding up the delivery of the homes that we need? Do the Government anticipate hitting their housebuilding targets early if modern methods of construction are harnessed effectively? Will the Government consider actively supporting the modern methods of construction sector as part of their housebuilding programme? What other steps will the Government be taking to overcome the labour supply challenges faced by the construction sector? Do Ministers anticipate labour supply becoming more of a problem in the light of their new housebuilding targets?
The modern methods of construction sector is interesting and it is growing. Ministers should watch the sector closely, so that innovations can be harnessed to the benefit of the British people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government on this important issue. I am conscious that the debate takes place following the publication yesterday of the report on Grenfell. Our huge sympathy is with the relatives and friends of the 72 people who lost their lives in that incident, and with the brave communities that have waited seven years for that report. We will consider the issues of safety that relate to this topic very carefully, and we will learn all the lessons of the Grenfell report as we go through the further development of MMC.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for leading the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his committee for the work they did in the inquiry into the role of modern methods of construction, which concluded earlier this year. It was a very thorough inquiry, and I am grateful for the work that was done.
I should declare an interest, having used MMC for a Housing First homeless project in my borough when I was leader of the council, and for a further affordable housing project with a housing association. Both of these were very successful, very quick, and delivered on time and to budget.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I recognise the expertise in the House—that is quite nerve-wracking for a Minister, but I am grateful for it, nevertheless. I will try to respond to the points that have been raised. I have been variously described as a ringmaster and a midwife in this debate, so I will do my best to fulfil those roles.
I start with the role of MMC in meeting housing supply, an issue rightly raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Banner, Lord Carrington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. As noble Lords will be aware, this Government were elected on a decisive mandate of change and national renewal, with an overriding mission to deliver economic growth and the higher living standards, good jobs, stronger public services and greater opportunities that go with that, for all parts of our country.
Getting Britain building again and tackling the housing crisis we inherited will be critical to achieving our ambition of building 1.5 million homes over the course of the next Parliament—a target referred to in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. We agree with the noble Lord that modern methods of construction have an important role to play in this endeavour.
Innovation has revolutionised so many sectors and transformed the way we live, with incredible gains in productivity and living standards, yet much of the housebuilding industry continues to build in the same way it has for hundreds of years. Of course traditional build has, and will continue to have, its place. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the historic use of prefabs, way back when, and mentioned Chiswick, where my grandmother lived, so I remember that well. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, also referred to this. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Bowles, and others, referred to the public perception of this issue, which is vital to our consideration.
The serious challenges we face, not least in meeting our net-zero goals, demand that we take a much more ambitious and innovative approach, which is why I believe it is time to realise the great potential of modern methods of construction. That relates to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, about being committed and having the commitment to drive this forward.
I am delighted to see a number of MMC firms succeeding, such as Vision Modular building Europe’s largest residential modular tower in Croydon, or a number of manufacturers delivering affordable modular homes on challenging brownfield sites. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to Grange University Hospital being built with these techniques.
The benefits MMC brings are truly impressive. It can help to deliver high-quality greener homes more quickly than traditional methods, which is good news for boosting supply and for the environment. I agree with noble Lords’ comments about the importance of good design and a variety of design, all of which are possible with MMC. It is therefore no surprise that an increasing number of housebuilders are already using off-site construction methods. Last night, I met with one who was talking to me about their innovation in this area.
MMC can help to create new well-paid jobs, attracting a wider pool of talent than traditional construction work. I recognise the challenges in the skills area, but this can attract a new cohort of talent, meaning that housing delivery is no longer held back by housing challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the involvement of Skills England. The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, all referred to skills, and I assure them that colleagues in MHCLG take that issue incredibly seriously.
MMC offers a broad range of technologies and approaches and, while much of the committee’s work focused on the category 1 market, we welcome the housebuilding sector’s increasing adoption of category 2 MMC, such as timber frame and panelised systems. Timber frame is already used in over 90% of new homes in Scotland, and a growing number of developers—such as Barratt, Vistry and Persimmon—are investing in and expanding their factories. That is in addition to both long-standing and emerging category 2 suppliers, such as British Offsite and Donaldson, investing in their manufacturing facilities to provide greater capacity and productivity. So there are reasons to be very optimistic about the future of MMC and what it could contribute to our housing and growth options.
That said, it has also undoubtedly been a challenging period for the low-rise modular market, with a number of high-profile exits over the last two years, as referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Eaton, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Moylan. This was not entirely unexpected: all innovative sectors experience failures as they develop and refine their business models, and the traditional construction sector has also been hit by a few failures over the same period.
What has happened in the MMC sector illustrates some of the key challenges of wider MMC adoption, many of which the committee considered. First and importantly, it illustrates the need for a steady pipeline of demand, which many noble Lords referred to, including the noble Lords, Lord Rooker, Lord Mair and Lord Jamieson. Large-scale MMC manufacturers will require that steady pipeline of demand, which is currently hampered by a lack of certainty in the planning system and the cyclical housing market.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the committee were also right to reflect on the significant role of warranty and insurance providers, and other noble Lords referred to the finance sector. There needs to be clarity for manufacturers and developers on requirements to ensure that they can deliver high-quality homes without stifling innovation. The closures over the past two years have demonstrated the supply chain risk that manufacturer-specific systems create, should those firms exit the market, leaving purchasers unable to complete their homes. So we need to tackle the interoperability to help restore market confidence, and we must ensure that manufacturers have access to finance to ensure that viable firms can invest and grow in the market, as referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Griffiths.
Tackling these barriers will be challenging, and it will be for both developers and government to help drive the wider adoption of MMC. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to full order books, which is what they are looking for, and we need to build the confidence to create that. But many in the sector are not letting this stand in their way, and they are blazing a trail to making MMC more mainstream. We want to accelerate that journey, and we have lost no time in getting that work going, starting with significant steps to reintroduce mandatory planning targets and release grey-belt land for development, thereby driving demand across the country and giving developers and MMC manufacturers the certainty and stability they need to invest confidently and increase their capacity.
The sector is already stepping up, with a very public commitment from 43 housebuilders to utilise, and expand their use of, MMC in response to the planning reforms we set out in July. The committee highlighted the role that the affordable homes programme plays in providing a pipeline of demand for MMC manufacturers, while also improving awareness among social housing providers. I appreciate the key point of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about specialist housing provision—I will take that back.
We have clearly heard this message from manufacturers. The current £12.5 billion AHP is being implemented, and we will set out details of future investment in social and affordable housing at the spending review. Our aim is to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing for a generation, and we truly believe that MMC will very much contribute to this.
The department is working with the British Standards Institution and the sector to deliver a new publicly available specification for MMC. This will bring greater clarity on the important issue of warranty and insurance providers, hopefully without squashing innovation in the sector. We are considering further options for greater standardisation, not only reducing the supply chain risk for customers but supporting suppliers to yield greater benefits from the manufacturing process, as well as protecting innovation and intellectual property. In addition, financial support is available to MMC manufacturers wanting to grow and expand through the £1.5 billion levelling-up home building fund. This is just the start; we recognise that there is a lot more to do, and we will set out further details in due course.
Our approach will be informed by support for different construction methods, in recognition of the fact that we need a diverse number of approaches to deliver on our housing targets. Not all parts of the sector will require the same types of support, and we must make sure that we do not focus simply on picking winners. This is about removing the sector-wide barriers to adoption, so that we have an MMC market that can deliver the decent homes and strong communities we all want to see. We will continue to engage with key stakeholders to develop the right approach for the sector, and I look forward to sharing more details about that in due course.
I will pick up some of the individual issues that noble Lords have raised. The publishing of an MMC strategy and the task force was raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Mair and Lord Birt, talked about this, as well as cross-government work on the issue. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes, and we view the adoption of MMC as key to that. We are reflecting on the committee’s recommendations and views from across the sector to establish how best to increase the use of MMC in housebuilding as part of the wider housing strategy.
Noble Lords talked about the comparative cost of MMC, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Carrington. Some stakeholders report that MMC has a higher upfront cost than traditional build, although others note that it is achieving cost parity or better. We anticipate that this will change as MMC demand and capacity continues to increase—it is a virtuous cycle. It is important to consider the whole-life cost of a building and the wider benefits that MMC can bring to a project.
I have already spoken about the affordable housing programme, and I hope that answered Members’ questions about how we will engage our own funding to drive this market forward.
On supporting supply, we are working to establish how best to address the strategic barriers to further uptake of MMC, including improved supply chain confidence, clarity for the warranty and insurance markets, and planning reform. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised an important point about custom-build and self-build, which I will take back to the department and let him have a written answer on that.
Before I run out of time, I want to address the issue of safety, because I recognise the concerns there will be following the Grenfell report. Many noble Lords referred to this issue. The Government take very seriously their responsibilities for ensuring that homes are safe for people. Building under factory conditions has the potential to improve consistency of finishes and details, but the level of quality achieved in both on-site and off-site construction depends on what is designed, specified and constructed. Building regulations—and this is really important—apply equally to homes built using MMC as to those built using traditional methods. Buildings must meet the safety and performance requirements in the building regulations, no matter how they are constructed or what materials are used. MMC developers and manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations for any construction project, including ensuring that new techniques are used correctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised issues around the BRE, and I shall reply to those points in writing.
We share the sector’s ambition, and the ambition that we have heard today, for it to grow and succeed and play its part in getting Britain building, delivering the jobs, growth and opportunities that our country needs and deserves. We are hugely thankful to the sector for its support in getting us this far, for the continued efforts to realise its potential and for the exciting gains to come.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has participated in this debate. It has been an extremely useful debate. I particularly commend the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which answered most of our points and showed clearly that this is not a party-political issue; it is one on which there is consensus on both sides of the House. We all wish this industry to develop well. The points made in the debate highlighted the challenges that everybody involved in providing homes in this country will face to meet the demand that is there already.
I was deeply impressed by the quality of this debate and of the contributions to it. It is very sad that everybody except me and the Front-Bench speakers were limited to two minutes. The quality of the debate that we got in two minutes would, I believe, have gone up exponentially if we had had five or even 10 minutes for contributions.
With that, I thank everybody. It has been a good debate, and one that has taken forward the cause of revolutionising housebuilding in this country.
Vaginal Mesh Implants: Compensation
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that those who have suffered complications following vaginal mesh implants receive financial compensation.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have decided to speak in this short debate. I thank them for taking part and look forward to their contributions, as well as to the Minister’s reply. This is a subject that I feel very passionate about, and I welcome any support that your Lordships choose to give.
I was delighted to read that 140 mesh-harmed patients have received some redress, for it is long overdue. However, there are thousands of others harmed by mesh, still suffering, who are not included in the settlement. It is not just about mesh. In our report First Do No Harm, we recommended that those harmed by vaginal mesh, but also by the use of sodium valproate and by Primodos, should also receive redress.
It took me and my team two and half years to travel the country and gather the evidence, in the course of which we heard so many terrible stories of women who had been avoidably harmed. I have shared many of these stories with noble Lords during previous debates. Our report was published in July 2020, and I am sorry to say that I am still receiving emails today from women who are suffering so dreadfully, some of whom have now been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and are not being offered the support that they need. I have listened to women who have had to borrow money to have failed mesh implants removed privately and are now in considerable debt. Women who were prescribed sodium valproate and Primodos have children, many now adults, who will never be able to live independent lives after being exposed to the harm done by these drugs. These mothers bear great sadness from mis-prescribing. However, I am delighted to see that the current data indicates that there is almost no prescribing of sodium valproate during pregnancy. I hope that this means an end to ongoing harm, but there are so many who have been harmed and still need our help.
It is important to recognise that there was a failure on the part of the NHS to stop doctors prescribing sodium valproate immediately that the risks were known. I believe that the NHS must bear some of the responsibility for this. The same goes for those who were given Primodos.
The Hughes report, published in February 2024, had 10 recommendations, the first being that the Government had a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme. I believe that scheme needs to be put in place now, with interim payments being made as soon as possible. I was delighted to see how quickly the system was able to respond to the Infected Blood Inquiry. I therefore fail to see why these avoidably harmed people should be made to wait any longer.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have reflected on the role of the manufacturers of these medical interventions? The Government should shoulder the responsibility for redress and then pursue the manufacturers for their share of these catastrophes. I am pleased to see that the subject of redress is on the agenda of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and that she met the Patient Safety Commissioner at the beginning of August.
I am determined that all those affected by mesh, and the many others whose lives have been shattered by the effects of sodium valproate and Primodos, should receive the redress that they so richly deserve. These people have suffered enough; surely we should not be forcing them down such an adversarial route as taking action against the manufacturers when the damage done is so clear. The great majority of women cannot afford to bring lawsuits against the mighty drug companies; too many of them fail, and this was not their fault. They are not being offered the support they need.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her significant work on highlighting the issues around vaginal mesh implants that have impacted at least 10,000 women, probably many more, and for her continued efforts to make some progress, in particular in tabling this Question for Short Debate. The evidence that your Lordships will have seen of women reporting severe complications from mesh implants, including chronic pain, infections, organ perforation and, in some cases, permanent disability, underlines how crucial it was that her work led to the pause on the use of vaginally inserted surgical mesh in 2018.
As my noble friend has set out, establishing a compensation scheme for women affected was recommended by her independent review First Do No Harm in 2020 and that was echoed by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, in her report in February this year. It has been a long-running concern and all the while many women are continuing to suffer the consequences of this treatment. I welcome the positive steps that were made by the previous Government, including the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner, but there remain many issues that, sadly, they were not able to resolve. I know that the Minister, as Minister for Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health, must have an overflowing in-tray, but I look forward to her response today in the hope that we will hear clear plans for progress.
As we heard, following a group claim, the financial settlement in August from three manufacturers of mesh implants was welcome news, but there is a clear argument that more needs to be done. Compensation is a tangible way to acknowledge the suffering of women and provide the support that they need to continue to live their lives. While that case in August was a success, and some women have pursued legal action individually, these cases have often been long, costly and emotionally draining. Many women do not have the financial resources or the legal knowledge to take on large medical corporations or hospitals.
In my research I was pleased to see that information on compensation was readily available on the NHS website, but it is clear that the existing approach is inconsistent and fragmented. Hundreds of women were prevented from making a claim due to the strict 10-year time limit that is in force from the date that the product was manufactured. I hope that the Government will consider looking at that. A national government-backed compensation fund would ensure a uniform and fair approach to dealing with claims, ensuring that all affected women have a fair chance of receiving the financial redress that they deserve without being forced into these lengthy legal battles.
I appreciate the complexities and the expense here and, of course, the importance of spending limited resources on improving health services. There are options for how compensation can be delivered and how it can be funded, and I know that other noble Lords will address that. Of course, financial compensation should go hand in hand with strengthening the regulation of medical devices and improving patient safety.
I pay tribute to the campaigners who have worked so hard to highlight this treatment over the years—the individuals, the women’s health organisations, and in particular the campaign group Sling The Mesh. I know that this work can be frustrating, exhausting and often thankless, but thanks to them, this issue, which can sometimes be seen as taboo, has been highlighted. We have seen some progress and will continue to push for more and I hope that they realise the difference that they are making.
In addition to the compensation scheme, Sling The Mesh is calling for a number of actions, from raising awareness of implant risk to tougher approval systems, regulations and oversight to protect public safety. In her response, I hope the Minister will also find time to comment on its calls for better databases to track the long-term harm of medical devices, which would help spot trends of harm, and for a sunshine payment Bill to improve transparency in the UK health sector by ensuring that the pharmaceutical and medical device industries declare all the money given to doctors, researchers, lobby groups, health charities, surgeon societies and teaching hospitals. That is not to stop that money being invested, just to be clear and transparent about what is happening.
I support my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s call for action on implementing the recommendations in her First Do No Harm report and the more recent Hughes report. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate and the panel for its review and tenacious follow-up of remaining recommendations, particularly recommendations 3 and 4 on financial compensation.
I am a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Inquiries Act. With recent reports from statutory public inquiries on Grenfell and Covid-19, non-statutory inquiries such as this can be overlooked. While Grenfell and Covid-19 clearly needed the statutory model, it often comes with unhelpful TV images of banks of lawyers, looking like a courtroom. I do not want to pre-empt the publication of our report in the next few weeks, but it seems that both the noble Baroness and Bishop James Jones, who led the non-statutory Hillsborough review, managed to obtain the trust of victims’ groups, which is essential to that model. Along with my noble friend Lady Sugg, I too applaud those groups who were maturely able to see the advantages and merit of the non-statutory process and, I hope, found it less arduous than the courtroom-type hearings.
A number of recent inquiries—into the Post Office, Grenfell and infected blood—have led to the establishment of compensation schemes. Given the systemic failures outlined so clearly in this review and the avoidable harm caused, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline fully what distinguishes this request from those of the other schemes, if His Majesty’s Government’s position has changed since 4 July. Now that His Majesty’s Government are overseeing a number of these schemes, I hope there is co-ordination over the levels of compensation given, for instance over the costs of care in the home, so that there are comparable tariffs across the schemes. But the request for a redress agency, and the three separate schemes in advance of this, sits in a landscape of similar medical schemes—on variant CJD, vaccine damage and thalidomide, to name just a few. Why are these three schemes not just as worthy as those other medical schemes? I hope the Minister can justify this distinction.
In relation to vaginal mesh, will His Majesty’s Government not have had to consider how to justify on objective, reasonable grounds a decision that looks, prima facie, like indirect discrimination against women? I suspect that, more tellingly, the reason will be to do with the costs. As the review outlines, in other countries big pharmaceutical companies and the suppliers of devices contribute. Will the Minister undertake to meet these companies and ask them to bring a full assessment of the costs to them of litigation, both successful and unsuccessful? Could she also prepare a full assessment of the cost to the public purse of leaving this just to litigation?
By a full assessment I mean, inter alia, the legal costs and compensation paid out by NHS trusts in successful claims, the costs not recovered from the other side even in successful cases, the often unrecoverable lost time of medical staff having to attend court and prepare witness statements, and the costs of court time and of class actions being brought against the Secretary of State. Even if the HPT class action has been discontinued, what was the civil servant time, ministerial time, and Government Legal Department time involved in the case—and the cost to the public purse of debates and Questions in Parliament, including the private office time preparing the Minister and sitting in the Box? Could the companies and public purse assessments be compared to the costs of running a scheme similar to those I have outlined?
There are also non-financial costs borne by the victims and society. The awful testimonies of the debilitating effects of surgery are harrowing—I am so grateful that my loved ones have always had amazing NHS care. But perhaps there are women struggling with their disabilities who think, “If I had a bit extra to buy some help, I could get back to work, maybe just part-time”, or women who are managing their lives and thinking, “I could do some work, but now I have to take on litigation. That is really the final straw”.
The country needs as many people as possible in the workforce. Can the noble Baroness request any relevant information that the DWP holds in relation to these women? For instance, how many are in that situation? Would the noble Baroness be content for women who might be listening today to write to her to outline such situations—and, of course, add the civil servant cost of replying to that correspondence to the full assessment I outlined above?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join what I am sure will be a chorus of praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, both for securing this debate and for her brilliant work over many years on these issues, particularly that of vaginal mesh. I started working with the noble Baroness during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. If we think back, many of the things the noble Baroness was pushing for have since been achieved. However, today we are addressing some of the things that still desperately need to be dealt with.
One of the noble Baroness’s achievements was the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner. Dr Henrietta Hughes is doing a brilliant job and, as has already been referred to, brought out a report in February urging that the compensation schemes for both sodium valproate and vaginal mesh be brought in as soon as possible. I will just do a little bit of advertising for Dr Hughes. She still has a consultation open on the principles of better patient safety and there is one more day for a chance to respond to that, if anyone would like to do so. It is such important work that it deserves to be highlighted.
I want to put this in the broader context of where we are now. We seem to be hearing weekly about a cascade of official and government failures: the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Horizon scandal, the infected blood disaster and the Hillsborough tragedy. Obviously, we have a new Government and they do not bear direct responsibility for any of those circumstances, but it presents them with an enormous challenge: the challenge to respond sensitively, appropriately and at sufficient speed to do everything possible to ameliorate the circumstances of the victims.
These cases also throw up the challenge of acknowledging that the talk about “cutting red tape” that we have been hearing for so many years is a deeply dangerous approach. We need rules, regulations and controls to keep us safe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, drew attention to, we need to keep under control what those who make profits are doing to increase them.
We also need to listen to the people who are adversely affected when things start to go wrong. The reality is that so often—we know this is particularly the case with female patients—for years and years people said, “There’s a problem here”, and officialdom said, “No, nothing to see here; it’s all fine”, sometimes even saying that it was all in their head. The Government really need to stamp on that tendency.
I understand that it is early days for the new Government, but I have noticed—this is not directed at the Minister in particular, but at the Government more generally—that when I put down Written Questions and get the Answers, I seem to get essentially the same Answers as I got a few months ago under the previous Government. I urge Ministers, both individually and collectively, to please be curious and challenging. If an Answer was given six or 12 months, or two years, ago, ask if it is still the right one, if indeed it was the right one in the first place.
I have some specific points. A number of people referred to the recent settlement in the court case against the manufacturers. One of the issues that raised was the fact that hundreds of women were unable to make a claim due to a strict 10-year time limit from the date that the product was manufactured. Are the Government planning to do something about that?
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in paying great tribute to Sling The Mesh and other similar campaigners. Is the Minister ensuring that her door is open not only to that group but to many other campaigning groups? It would be great to hear that that is the case.
A further point is that Dr Hughes recommended at least an interim payment scheme for vaginal mesh and sodium valproate. The question everyone is asking is, when are we going to hear about that?
The Independent reports that June Dunne, a 64 year-old, has been waiting for corrective surgery since 2019. What are the waiting lists now like?
Finally, the official government figures say that there are 127,000 mesh implants. The campaigners say there may have been many more. Are the Government looking into making sure that they have the proper records of all people affected?
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on securing this short debate on this important and increasingly troubling subject. I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary work my noble friend has done, first in making her report and secondly, for following it up in so many ways.
One of the features of this terrible saga that has horrified me most is the way in which the health service has responded. Too many women, in seeking help, have been met not with sympathy and care but with indifference, denial, defensiveness and arrogance from those whom they believed would help them.
This is not my area of expertise, but I have been drawn into it by the experience of someone very close to my family who has suffered intolerably, has been treated appallingly when she should have been helped and has had to fight to have her health issues addressed. Following a referral in November 2014, she underwent an operation to insert mesh in December 2016. Subsequently, the mesh from her bowel travelled from her rectum to her fallopian tubes and ovaries. She has had countless infections and suffered ongoing severe discomfort and pain.
She has been pushed from pillar to post and seen four different specialists in four different hospitals. One urologist at the Royal United Hospital in Bath declined to examine her physically, as apparently, he could see simply by looking at her that she was fine. He categorically said that she did not have bad mesh. Had he taken the trouble to undertake even a cursory examination, he would have found that the mesh had perforated her vaginal wall, but he did not bother. She subsequently had to endure four operations to remove the mesh, ending with a stoma, which has recently been reversed.
Her current consultant has described hers as one of the worst cases of mesh damage she has ever seen. As far back as March 2021, this woman received a letter from the medical director of the North Bristol NHS Trust, in which he described her care and went on to write:
“I am very sorry to tell you these factors suggest the LVMR”,
the operation she underwent,
“was not clinically indicated at the time of the surgery in December 2016. … Undergoing an operation that may not have been required … is considered harmful”.
He went on to say:
“I sincerely apologise on behalf of the North Bristol NHS Trust that your surgery was not clinically indicated. This is unacceptable and we are taking this situation extremely seriously”.
Apart from the physical pain and suffering, there are practical consequences to consider. She was a fit, active, extremely competent and positive woman with a full family life and a thriving career at the top of her profession. Her condition was so debilitating that she was forced to give up her job. She lost her career and has been unable to work since 2016. The financial consequences are that she has lost her home, her savings, and now lives on disability benefits. She therefore has no credit rating, which means that the landlords she relies upon regard her as an undesirable tenant. She is unlikely ever again to have a partner or a personal relationship. That, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a pretty horrific list of life-changing consequences.
As the trust conceded in its letter in March 2021, three years ago,
“This is unacceptable and we are taking this situation extremely seriously”.
I do not know exactly what “taking this situation extremely seriously” means, but after a period of legal wrangling, this woman has been offered compensation of £25,000, less costs of £2,500. That is compensation for pain, suffering, five operations over eight years, loss of home and career and substantial and catastrophic financial loss, leading to a life on benefits. No reasonable person could possibly conclude that this is adequate redress.
We spent the summer in this House debating the compensation to be paid to the victims of the infected blood scandal, and we are all familiar with the appalling injustices of the Post Office scandal and the levels of compensation those victims are rightly due to receive. The Government said they had no plans to set up a compensation scheme for the victims of mesh implants, but in light of the damage that has been caused to what could be as many as 25,000 women—it may be fewer, it may be more; we are going to hear from the Minister—and with the examples of the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal, I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government will revisit the decision not to set up a compensation scheme and will be able to tell us today how they plan to compensate these women, and within what timeframe.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, in preparing for this debate, I went back to First Do No Harm, the original report from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I had read it before and I pushed the previous Government to up the pace on the appointment of the Patient Safety Commissioner because that dragged, but we got there in the end. I found the report’s contents no less shocking than they had been on the first reading. If anything, I found the testimonies of those living with harm from mesh even more upsetting this time, because these women and their families have been in limbo. I give my strong support to the call for redress from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and pay tribute to her work and that of the excellent Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes.
This was systemic failure, and we have heard a pattern of women not being listened to when they go for help, of being dismissed. Someone who gave evidence to the Hughes report said:
“I am a woman of a certain age, I’m slightly overweight, I’m a mum, not working, so I’m not given credibility”.
Let us remember exactly what happened. First Do No Harm describes women reporting excruciating chronic pain that feels like razors inside their body, damage to organs, the loss of mobility and sex life, and depression and suicidal thoughts. The report found:
“Some clinicians’ reactions ranged from ‘it’s all in your head’ to ‘these are women’s issues’ or ‘it’s that time of life’”.
Despite all this—or because of it—First Do No Harm sets out the burden of guilt felt by many women affected by mesh; risks they did not know about at the time they consented to their procedures; procedures they did not always need to have, given the degree of their incontinence or prolapse condition. As the report so sensitively said to the women at the time,
“it was not your fault”.
We should say that over and again to all the women who bravely came forward and exposed this scandal and had to talk about their most intimate and painful experiences. We should thank them.
There are three main things I want the Minister to comment on today. I would like her to set out, as others have said, the timetable for a response to the redress recommendations. I have witnessed her excellent command of her brief in opposition and now as a Minister—I will get told off for being too nice—and I have no doubt that she will put patients at the heart of her own work. Naturally, there has been some light-hearted banter in her first few weeks about timelines, and I am sure we have all been guilty of being creative with seasons and deciding when autumn might start and end, but in this context none of us can fall into that trap. It is perfectly correct for the new ministerial team to take the time properly to review this, but it is my job to push on behalf of the victims. I will not play politics, but I will push the Minister in that spirit. I have read the redress report in full, and while it acknowledges a range of complexities, it also has a range of very well-developed options, so I hope she will be able to set out a timetable.
I also want to talk about future services. The previous Government are to be commended for progress on the specialist vaginal mesh centres, but the Minister will want to focus on continuous improvement and will note that satisfaction levels are not consistent. Can she comment on what steps she will take to ensure that patient experience is captured? More widely, will she ensure that she pushes for the highest standards of maternity care for women, which, specifically relevant to this issue, must include postnatal pelvic floor rehabilitation? My noble friend’s report recommended the French model and access to specialist pelvic floor physiotherapy as soon as required. These are not niche healthcare issues; they go to the heart of how we as a society allow women to be treated at one of the most major events in their lives.
Lastly, I would like the Minister’s reflections on the experience of so many women being dismissed and not listened to. One quote in particular stuck with me:
“They would tell you there is nothing wrong with you and that you are just a hysterical woman”.
I was not surprised by that and many similar comments. Like many millions of women up and down the country, I have had excellent care in the NHS, but these testimonies reminded me powerfully of my own experience of injury as a result of childbirth. Luckily for me, it was nowhere near the scale of those suffered by these women—I would not pretend it was—and I recovered, but I was told that I could not be in any pain when I had never felt any pain like it. I was a fit and healthy young woman but I asked my husband if he could speak to someone and explain that I really was in pain because I thought they might listen to a man. I am sorry to resort to anecdote, but one hears this over and again.
I have run out of time, but I push the Minister to respond on these issues.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for securing this debate and for her unstinting commitment to ensuring that victims of vaginal mesh, sodium valproate, Primodos and other medical problems and scandals continue to have their voices heard. Her report for the last Government, First Do No Harm, published five years ago now, was extraordinary and impossible to ignore, and those of its recommendations that have been implemented have started to change the way that support for patient victims is delivered. I hope—and I will come back to this later—that it is also starting the change in culture that we need to see inside the NHS. We all love our NHS and sometimes it can be hard to admit that some of the senior doctors within it are not the best people to support patients and ensure that patients feel they are getting the right help they need when things go wrong.
I am particularly pleased about the role of the Patient Safety Commissioner, which I remember us debating in 2020. Dr Henrietta Hughes is making a brilliant start, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the comments that she made about that. However, I repeat a question I asked when the post was first set up: is the office of the Patient Safety Commissioner getting enough resources to do the job that she so clearly has to? I have no doubt that she is a very able woman but I am concerned about the volume that her office is dealing with.
I pay tribute to the victims of not just vaginal mesh but sodium valproate and Primodos, who have continued to tell their stories. We know that repeatedly telling your story is painful too, but we need to hear them. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Wyld, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who told his friend’s personal story, all of whom reminded us of how dreadful the position is. While the difference between these problems and the infected blood scandal is that we are not seeing fatalities, we underestimate the long-term life changes that all these victims have faced, some of them the children of those who were fed medicines during pregnancy, not one of them at fault at all in any way.
There is one voice that we have not heard: that of the NHS whistleblowers. I shall mention one person of whom I had not been aware until there was an article about her in the British Medical Journal earlier this year. Sohier Elneil is a urogynaecological surgeon and an expert in women’s pain. She is the founder of the first NHS vaginal mesh removal centre and a tireless champion of supporting the victims and sorting out the problems. I was shocked to read that, after she started talking about this issue in 2005, she was excluded from events by doctors, then personally attacked and reported to the General Medical Council multiple times, mainly by fellow consultants—those who were the biggest implanters of mesh. She said:
“I was very upset. It felt like a war. They were saying I was removing mesh and harming patients unnecessarily”.
Professor Elneil continued with her campaign, and I have to say that her story did not stop there. She also uncovered some of the doctors being encouraged with financial incentives from the providers of vaginal mesh. It is good that both Henrietta Hughes’ report and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that things needed to become transparent. The last Government refused to allow those records to go on to the register at the GMC but they should be on that register, not kept elsewhere, because if a member of the public wants to find something out, the GMC will be the first place they go. Can the Minister say whether that will happen?
Others have already talked about the time limit. I shall make brief mention of the issue relayed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the type of inquiry and the ability to make effective reports. In my portfolio I have covered virtually all these inquiries over the past 18 months, and I have heard every single group of victims say that another inquiry has provided the right response for them. None of the inquiries has yet been resolved—even those, such as the Post Office Horizon inquiry and the infected blood inquiry, which we think have been resolved. If the Government will not revisit the deadline, they will be dragged kicking and screaming into a higher level of inquiry as more cases are revealed. Please can the Government, preferably via the Cabinet Office, bring together the learning from all these inquiries about what goes wrong in government to make these things happen?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank my noble friends Lady Sugg, Lady Berridge and Lady Wyld, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who all made very powerful points in their speeches. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to her work on this issue over many years and her leadership on the First Do No Harm report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, as well as to her team of Sir Cyril Chantler, Simon Whale and Dr Valerie Brasse, and the patient groups.
Simply put, victims have suffered as a result of two medications and one medical device. The medications are: hormone pregnancy tests such as Primodos, which were later withdrawn due to concerns over birth defects and miscarriages; and sodium valproate, the anti-epileptic drug which was later found to cause physical malformations, autism and developmental delay in children after being taken by pregnant mothers. The medical device is the pelvic mesh implants which were used to repair pelvic organ prolapse and address urinary incontinence. Their use has been linked to crippling, life-changing complications.
My noble friend Lord Kamall tells me that when he was a Minister in the department he was horrified that progress for helping the poor women who had suffered from these two medications and one medical device was far too slow. Fortunately, the then Minister, Maria Caulfield, asked the Patient Safety Commissioner to explain what the Government should do to meet the needs of individual patients who had suffered these avoidable harms.
In government, we completed four of the initial recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and another three were in progress in March 2024. The most important of these is the setting up of nine specialist centres which can provide the support needed in terms not just of redress surgically or treatment-wise but of the support that people need to help them cope with the issues. We expect the Government to deliver financial compensation for those affected by these treatments as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has said that after “first do no harm” should come
“and now do some good”.
As other noble Lords have referenced, the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report, published earlier this year, states that
“there is a clear case for redress based on the systemic healthcare and regulatory failures”
for women and children affected by the issues in England.
There is agreement across this House that Governments of all political colours have been too slow in delivering justice and financial compensation to victims of scandals in the past. We need mention only the Post Office Horizon scandal to remind ourselves of the importance of delivering justice to those who have been wronged. When these problems come to light, it is essential that we help the victims of these scandals as quickly as possible. Too many people suffered over the Horizon scandal and too many people and families suffered due to delays in helping victims of the infected blood scandal. Likewise, too many women, children and families have suffered as a result of women being prescribed Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants. The Government must act urgently to help those women who have suffered, so will the Minister give an undertaking today to make this a priority?
On 23 July, my noble friend Lord Kamall submitted a Written Question to the Minister asking when the Government intend to respond to the Hughes report and when they anticipate making the first payments under the recommended redress scheme. I thank the Minister for replying within three days, saying:
“The Government is considering the recommendations of The Hughes Report, and to prevent future harm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, NHS England, and others have taken action to strengthen oversight of valproate prescribing and mesh procedures”.
My noble friend Lord Kamall followed up on 29 July to ask the Government
“by which date they expect to issue a response to the Hughes Report, and whether they plan to offer compensation as the report recommends”.
Again, the Minister responded promptly with the Answer:
“The government is carefully considering the valuable work done by the Hughes Report and will respond in due course”.
We recognise that the Government are relatively new and need time to get up to speed, but can the Minister be more specific at this stage in answering the timescale question?
My noble friend Lord Kamall tells me that when he was a Minister there were two phrases in briefings that he was not fond of. One was “at pace” and the other was “in due course”. Can the Minister give noble Lords an approximate timescale for a decision—for example, by the end of 2024, mid-2025 or indeed the end of 2025? If not, can she enlighten noble Lords on when she will be able to give an estimate of the date by which she will know the date of the Government’s response? It is vital that they give some certainty to noble Lords—and, more importantly, to the many women and children who have suffered for far too long physically, mentally and economically. I know that the noble Baroness is a formidable operator as a Minister and, to speak personally, she has our full support on this side of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on securing this important debate. I compliment her on getting it early in the time of a new Government, which will help me to do the job that I will need to do. I also thank noble Lords for their powerful words on this important topic. To borrow some of the words used, anybody sitting here will understand that we are talking about something so harrowing, so shocking and so distressing that it would be hard not to be moved by what has been heard both today in the Chamber and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, said, when one reflects back on the report.
I give the assurance that after the debate I will reflect closely on all the points raised, and I will seek to cover a number of them as best I can now. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, obviously and rightly invites me to set out a timetable—as have many other noble Lords. I know that your Lordships’ House understands the newness of the Government and the need to get it right. While saying that, I also hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I understand that this has been going on for a very long time under the previous Government and that many individuals, and their families and friends, are looking for resolution.
As we have heard, lives have been irrevocably changed by vaginal mesh implants, and we have to ensure that lessons are learned. This Government will endeavour to build a system that listens—particularly, I might add, to women, whose voices have not been heard, which is why we find ourselves in many of the situations we are considering—and a system that hears properly and will act with speed, compassion and proportionality.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, brought into the Chamber a very specific case, about which I was sorry to hear. I am sure that we are all sorry to know that the woman to whom the noble Lord referred is far from alone. I repeat to all those who have been affected that, as the report said,
“it was not your fault”.
We deliberately will put patient safety at the heart of improving our health and social care system. I convey my sympathy to everyone who has suffered complications following vaginal mesh implants. I am committed to ensuring that we learn from these tragic incidents. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review’s report, which was published in 2020 and chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was pioneering in its impact. The stories and realities are as deeply affecting today as they were when the noble Baroness commenced her work. I thank her, as many other noble Lords have done, for her work. She has been and is a key advocate for women’s health, but particularly for those who are experiencing complications and after-effects that they should not be enduring.
The Patient Safety Commissioner has continued this work. I thank her for the work she did on the Hughes report, published in February. Having met with Dr Hughes soon after my appointment, I very much look forward to working closely with her on a number of issues, including this one, to improve patient safety.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that in my comments I am reflecting on the situation as it stands. As we have heard, when used for pelvic organ prolapse and for stress urinary incontinence, vaginal mesh can be incredibly damaging for those suffering from complications, which is why it has been paused in these instances. NHS England has now established nine specialist mesh centres across England. The aim is to ensure that women in every region who have complications can get the right support and care. Each mesh centre is led by a multidisciplinary team to ensure that patients get access to the specialist care and treatment that they need, including pain management and psychological support as well as mesh removal surgery where that is appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and other noble Lords rightly raised the powerful Sling The Mesh campaign for an improved database. I associate myself with the comments of appreciation for that campaign group and many others who have campaigned in an area where others have feared to tread. I certainly share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to ensure that there is proper data collection on device safety, which is why mesh centres will improve recording and monitoring of patient outcomes and experience by submitting procedural data to the pelvic floor registry. In this vein, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research a £1.56 million study has been commissioned to develop the patient-reported outcome measure for prolapse, incontinence and mesh complication surgery. In the longer term, this measure will be integrated into the pelvic floor registry.
The review by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, also looked into the matter of sodium valproate, and rightly so. I am glad to report that since then a number of actions have been taken or are under way to ensure that valproate is prescribed only when absolutely clinically appropriate. Alongside that, I am encouraged that the number of women who are still being prescribed it has reduced significantly following the MHRA’s introduction of the pregnancy prevention programme.
While significant progress may have been made in the areas I have outlined, the core question posed by this debate is about progress in ensuring that those suffering complications receive financial compensation for their suffering. This is an absolutely key question. This and the sodium valproate issue, which was reviewed in the Hughes report, are extremely complex and sensitive, as I know noble Lords appreciate. I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that I am considering this and the recommendations of the Hughes report.
As I mentioned at the outset, as a new Government, we need to carefully consider the report before coming to a decision. The recommendations will be discussed with colleagues across government, and lessons will be learned from other instances where patient safety has been impacted, as noble Lords have asked of me. As part of this, and in answer to some of the questions by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others, I will ensure that the number of those affected is reflected correctly. While I hope that noble Lords will understand, if not be happy, that I cannot provide a decision today, I commit to providing an update to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report at the earliest opportunity and look forward to being able to update noble Lords further.
I have taken on board a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and throughout the debate, about the importance of transparency, trust and confidence. The department has worked with NHS England and healthcare providers to understand systems already in place for the collection and publication of information on doctors’ conflicts of interest and the work needed to implement updated guidance. That guidance will be published by NHS England. Again, I look forward to providing an update to your Lordships’ House on this. Furthermore, the department has held a public consultation on the disclosure of industry payments to the healthcare sector, and we will respond to that one shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and other noble Lords raised the topic of imposing rules on manufacturers to pay compensation. This is a complex area and would potentially affect how products were developed, so it will need careful thought. Again, I will do that in conjunction with colleagues across government. Where a product causes injury, while it may be possible for an individual to pursue a claim for compensation directly against the manufacturer under existing legislation, I absolutely take the points made in the Chamber today that legal costs, practicalities, stress and the further distress that obviously goes alongside it often make this totally unrealistic.
I turn to some of the additional specific questions from noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was one of the noble Baronesses who raised the question on stopping manufacturers putting a 10-year time limit on redress. I will certainly raise this in discussions with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, and I am happy to write to noble Lords further to update them on any progress. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, made a powerful and illustrative point that errors are not cost-free in any sense. I definitely echo her concerns about the extensive cost of this failure: some is seen and some unseen, but the costs are there. I will consider it such an exercise when I reflect on how we take this forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, also raised the point on maternity services, which, as she will be well aware, the Government recognise has serious issues. We are determined to improve this, and I assure noble Lords that my work is under way. Those areas failing in maternity care will be supported to make rapid improvements. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, clearly shares my appreciation, as do others, for the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner. I will ensure that she has the resources and support that she needs.
This subject rightly evokes great sympathy, but it also needs action. I must and will return to this again.
Independent Schools: VAT Exemption
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
That this House takes note of the contribution of independent schools, and any potential effects that changes to the VAT exemption for independent school fees could have.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I sought this debate because our country’s independent schools—of which there are some 2,500 in total—face an imminent and dramatic change in their circumstances, which will have serious and far-reaching consequences. The Government are to put VAT on their fees in fulfilment of a pledge given in Labour’s recent election manifesto. This education tax, the first to be introduced in Britain—and, apart from a disastrous recent experiment in Greece, the first in Europe—is being imposed on schools with extraordinary haste.
At the very end of July, the Government announced, wholly unexpectedly, that their education tax would come into effect at the very beginning of next year. Now, 1 January 2025 is just under four months away. Schools and parents have made their plans for the academic year that is now beginning. How on earth do the Government imagine that these plans can be swiftly and easily rearranged? It is of course impossible, and it is quite wrong that schools and parents should have been plunged into such difficulties. Acute concern has naturally arisen. Many parents are deeply worried. Many schools, particularly those of small size which account for the overwhelming majority in the independent sector, face an uncertain future.
I stress one point above all: the effect that the rapid introduction of the tax will have on thousands of children, their well-being and their life chances. They should surely be at the forefront of our minds and, indeed, our hearts during this debate. The number of Peers taking part in it testifies to the strength of concern that exists across the House.
I declare my interests as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies. I naturally judge the issues which arise in this debate from their perspective, to which I will return.
Words matter. Labour’s leaders have become fond of saying that they will recruit 6,500 more teachers for state schools
“by ending tax breaks for private schools”.
This clearly implies that independent schools now enjoy some kind of special exemption from tax that they do not deserve. The truth is that all those who provide educational services have always been exempted from VAT, as they should be. That exemption is now to be removed from independent schools, and from independent schools alone, at least for the time being. The current tax regime has helped independent schools to thrive, a state of affairs that the Prime Minister has said enjoys his full approval. Last September he told Jewish News:
“We have got fantastic independent schools, I want them to thrive”.
With this VAT proposal, he is perhaps going a strange way about helping schools to fulfil his ambition for them.
No one, I think, doubts the excellence that abides in our independent education sector. It contains some of the best schools in the world. The majority of their pupils find places at leading universities. They go out into the world well prepared for their careers in a meritocratic, multiracial society. They look to the future, not to a vanished class-ridden past, as is so often asserted by those blinded by prejudice against them. Four out of 10 places in the schools represented by the Independent Schools Council are filled by the children of ethnic-minority families. The Jewish and Muslim faiths are among those who run schools within the council’s ambit. More than 2,000 youngsters from Ukraine have been given places at member schools, and for the most part their families remain in their war-torn homeland. These are among the many valuable and socially beneficial features of life in our country’s independent schools today.
Nor should it be forgotten that independent schools make a significant economic contribution to our country. Research by Oxford Economics in 2022 showed that they add £16.5 billion to the UK economy, sustain 328,000 jobs, provide in one way or another £5.1 billion in tax, and save the education budget £4.4 billion by educating pupils who would otherwise be a cost to the state, a saving that must now be expected to shrink as pupils are forced out of independent schools by the imposition of VAT.
I referred at the outset to the two linked organisations with which I am connected: the Independent Schools Council and the Independent Schools Association. The council represents some 1,400 schools, where around 80% of the half a million pupils in the independent sector are educated—the children at the heart of this debate. The Independent Schools Association has some 670 of those schools, a big slice of the total, in its membership. It is among them that many of the small schools, so prevalent in the independent sector today, are to be found. Some flourish with no more than 200 pupils, others with far fewer. They include performing arts schools, bilingual schools and many special needs schools. They cater for the children of hard-working, local parents who have struggled to have their needs met in the state sector. Many are virtually unknown outside of their local communities, where they are highly respected. The important point is this: the 670 members of the association are far more representative of the true state of the independent sector than the comparatively small number of large, well-known schools—Eton, Harrow and the rest—which exert so much fascination over the media. Those schools are the exception, not the rule; they constitute no more than 10% of the total.
What all the diverse members of the Independent Schools Council have in common is a commitment to high standards for the sake of their children’s future and to working in partnership with colleagues the state sector in a whole host of different ways—from academic teaching, orchestral concerts, drama and sport. There are now well over 9,000 flourishing partnership projects. These typically involve several different strands of activity in and out the of classroom, in which state and independent schools work together for their mutual benefit—I stress mutual benefit. Full details can be found on the Schools Together website.
Meanwhile, independent schools have been widening their intake through fee reductions. In the last year, schools provided a total of £1.1 billion, much of it in the form of means-tested bursaries. How I wish it had been possible to induce our Governments over the years to back an ambitious wider access scheme, with places being made available at all levels of ability, co-funded by the Government, local councils, schools and benefactors. Winston Churchill sometimes spoke privately during the Second World War of constructing a great scheme of educational co-operation. How Churchill would have jeered at Labour’s attempts to depict our independent schools today as the exclusive preserve of the super-rich, in defiance of the facts that I have set out.
Most independent school parents are not rich, let alone super-rich. Labour blithely says that schools will not need to pass VAT on to parents but can absorb it all themselves. They cannot; only a handful have the endowments or reserves that would enable them to pay it themselves. Today, many parents up and down our country are looking at their family budgets and concluding that they will not be able to pay the higher fees that the Government will create for them. They will, with the heaviest of hearts, have to seek places in state schools.
Here is one example of what then will be the inevitable consequence. The head of a small school in Derbyshire with 80 pupils has written to tell me:
“it is clear from conversations I have had with parents that a significant proportion of our families will simply be unable to afford the increase. We could easily lose 17 pupils. This will have a devastating impact upon school income and will close us”.
Labour seems to think that school closures need cause no great concern. It says that over 1,000 independent schools closed during the 14 years from 2010. But some were mergers rather than closures and others were very small schools. Less than half were mainstream schools; schools delivering specialist provision are always prone to fluctuations, and Covid took its toll. There is also a world of difference between sudden state-driven closures and the closing down of schools for reasons of their own, with new ones opening probably in the vicinity. Who will want to open new independent schools today?
The prospect of losing smaller independent schools is simply appalling. So much invaluable support is provided in them for a huge variety of special needs. Many parents have since the election been making clear their heartbreak at the thought of being unable to afford any longer the place where their child with a special need has been wonderfully cared for. The Government-created fee rise will affect more than 90,000 families with special needs. Only children with hard-to-come-by education, health and care plans will be exempt from it.
A special needs co-ordinator who has worked in a state school for nearly 40 years writes:
“many private schools have been formed to cater specifically for special needs. They provide centres of excellence, often where there is a deficit regionally. Why risk losing them?”
Why indeed?
The government-created fee rise will make small community faith schools unaffordable for many Jewish and Muslim families. At present, some 370,000 children attend independent faith schools in England.
The prospect of this fee rise is a source of the greatest worry to our service families, who place our society so greatly in their debt. Some long-serving men and women in our Armed Forces fear that they will have to leave jobs they love. The 4,700 children for whom the continuity of education allowance is being provided must not be made subject to VAT.
It is very far from certain that, by slapping VAT on school fees, the Government will get anywhere near the £1.5 billion they seek to create new teachers for state schools. The additional resources that state schools will need to teach more pupils could absorb much of the revenue gained from the VAT charge, and perhaps even exceed it. Estimates of the number of children who will have to leave independent schools vary. The Government have not undertaken any assessment whatever. They are rushing ahead, without even waiting for the conclusions of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which they have pledged to respect.
I invite support for the following propositions. All children with SEND should be exempt from the VAT charge. It should not be applied to service families receiving the continuity of education allowance. Steps should be taken to protect small faith schools. Above all, VAT should not begin to apply before the start of the 2025-26 academic year. The date now proposed—1 January 2025—has been widely and rightly described as cruel. A full independent assessment of the implications of our first-ever education tax should be carried out before it is introduced.
Is it not our duty to do all we can to protect the interests of all children everywhere? One mother writes to me that
“my child sat and watched an interview with Rachel Reeves, in which she stated that she is concerned with the 93 per cent of children in state schools and not the 7 per cent in independent schools. My child turned and asked why the lady doesn’t care about me”.
Is that not a truly heart-rending comment? I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I have been lucky enough to play a role in the governance of both state and independent schools. From 2016 until recently, I was chair of Young Epilepsy, which, among many other things, runs a wonderful special independent school in Surrey, called St Piers, for both day and boarding pupils. I am currently a board member of the Lift Schools multi-academy trust—formerly AET—which runs 57 state schools across the country. So noble Lords might think I would find myself somewhat torn when considering the arguments for and against charging independent schools VAT and spending the money generated by so doing on state schools—but I am not.
At Lift Schools, I can see at first hand just how vital that extra injection of money is. In the words of our inspirational chief executive:
“We simply don’t have enough teachers in our schools. This is down to absolute numbers, but it is also down to the fact that the role of a teacher has been stretched beyond anything imaginable 10 years ago. No longer simply an educator, they are social worker, mental health first aider, a parent for some. One of the casualties of this raid on discretionary effort is the wider enrichment that is the norm in independent schools and should be for state schools too—the music, sports, art, drama, debating, foreign trips and field trips”.
As for St Piers and all those other independent schools meeting the needs of children with education, health and care plans, the Government have made crystal clear that fees for these children will be exempt from VAT.
The independent schools that will have to pay VAT are not special schools like St Piers but the ones whose parents choose to pay for their children to have a more well-funded education than the state can afford to provide. I do not criticise parents who wish that the fees they pay to private schools were not going to rise further as a result of the ending of the VAT exemption—of course I do not. But, if we look at the issue in the round from the perspective of the nation’s children as a whole, rather than from only the one in 15 who attend private schools, what do we learn?
We learn from the unimpeachable source of the impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies that the 14 in 15 who go to state school are falling further and further behind, compared with one in 15 at private schools, with their enviable resources. Private schools, the IFS tells us, spent 40% more on their pupils’ education than state schools were funded to do back in 2010—a pretty big gap, I am sure we can all agree. But now the gap is an incredible 90%; it has more than doubled since my party was last in power. In that situation can we really justify a continued 20% tax break for private schools? I think not. Why has the gap got so much bigger? Partly, of course, it is because the previous Government cut state school funding per pupil in the age of austerity, and their more recent increases only brought schools back to where they started in 2010. But it is mainly because private schools have increased their fees, which are 24% higher in real terms than in 2010. By the way, those arguing that charging VAT will mean pupils switching from private to state seem to forget that the 24% increase in fees has led to no reduction whatever in the proportion of pupils going to private schools, which is still steady at one in 15, just as it was in 2010.
But it is not really about the numbers, of course—it is about the children. Let me end by telling noble Lords about my daughter’s first day at her local comprehensive secondary school, and in particular about the instruction she and all new pupils were given that day: no running in the playground at lunchtimes. Why not? Because it was so crowded that they might hurt themselves bumping into each other. Why was it so crowded? Because this hard-pressed state school, desperate for extra cash, had sold part of its land to the adjoining private school. My daughter pressed her face up to the wire fence, gazing at the endless fields stretched out in front of her for the benefit of the one in 15, and thought that that was not fair. She was right: it was not, and it still is not, so let us do something about it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a debate that I never thought I would be taking part in, the tone of which we should note. We on these Benches do not like what is going on here in education. Different bits of the education sector are being taxed differently. With special educational needs, you can claim some of the money back. Well, that is always going to run smoothly; there will never be a cashflow problem and nobody will ever get it wrong. Also, it is dependent on that wonderful thing, an education and healthcare plan.
If there is a more unloved bit of the education sector than the education and healthcare plan, I have not seen it. It takes about two years to get—if you have the right lawyer and the right type of parents, who fight for it. Schools are blocking it because they do not want it to go through. The weirdest thing about it is that we have broken the £100 million barrier of public money going into resisting it and going to tribunals. Some 90% plus of the tribunals are granted—it is almost a rite of passage.
If the Government had said that they would help the private sector in dealing with special educational needs, having dealt with this first, they would be getting a much more favourable hearing from me. It is an absurdity to base an exemption on something that favours—guess who?—the educated, wealthy parents who can afford the legal fees to get through. There is something fundamentally wrong here.
I am in favour of making sure that we get better provision in state schools to address special educational needs. However, the whole system has gone wrong. If it is based around this, I cannot see how it is going to happen. Let us remember that private education has been looking after X amount of those with SEN for more than half a century; it is a very established pattern.
Also, the schools doing this have a percentage of pupils who do not have the plan, often because their parents are not prepared to put themselves or their children through the delays and the process of getting that plan. They are creating a critical mass for the economic reality of that school. If we lose these, or a percentage of these, what happens to those schools?
I hope that the Government have, at some point, done an analysis of how many pupils they can lose from this sector. The Government have recognised that it is important, so I hope they have. For pupils who do not have a plan for leaving the sector or going back into a state school, it would help to know the economic benefit. I do not know what it is—is it positive or negative? It would help if we could find out.
This contribution from the independent sector is clearly necessary at the moment. I hope the Government will tell us what they are going to do that will mean it is not necessary. Can they please tell us how they will do this, and when it will arrive? I do not like the idea of people having to go to independent schools to get the education they need but, at the moment, it is clear that they do. Will the Government address this problem in the round, and will they tell us when they are going to get rid of the plan?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, to her new responsibilities, I also say at the outset that I am grateful to her for promising to respond, when she replies, to some detailed questions I have sent to her. I also thank the admirable noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for the customarily powerful and eloquent way in which he introduced today’s important debate. I agree with everything that he has said today.
For family reasons my Cross-Bench colleague and noble friend Lord Pannick is unable to be here today. He has looked at this education tax and its potential conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. He tells me that it
“is strongly arguable that the imposition of VAT would breach Article 2 of the First Protocol read on its own (access to educational facilities) or with Article 14 of the Convention (arbitrary discrimination in the enjoyment of educational facilities)”.
I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose mandate is to monitor potential conflict between government policies and the ECHR. My noble friend Lord Pannick says that
“it would be a very valuable service if the Joint Committee could look at this”.
I agree, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will not proceed if this is found to be in breach of the ECHR.
We need also to scrutinise some of the other claims that have been made, such as the impact on public finance. The Adam Smith Institute calculates that, far from generating revenue, the policy could lead to a staggering loss of up to £2 billion. The Minister has seen that assessment and the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, along with a Times editorial, which all question the Government’s assumptions about raising revenue. Let us also look at what happened in 2015 in Greece when a similar tax was introduced. Some schools were forced to close, while others inevitably passed on the tax to parents. The same thing is already happening here.
Driven by dogma, it is easy to say that this is all justified as a long-overdue attack on the ultra-rich. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, reminded us at the outset of the debate, this regressive double tax on people who have already paid for universal education through their income tax will not impact wealthy families who pay for education, often, through property purchases in sought-after school districts, merely increasing educational inequalities. This education tax will disproportionately impact middle-income families, such as those of the 168,000 children who receive financial support from independent schools or the 10,000 who pay no fees. These are the families who will suffer, many of whom have made great sacrifices for their children’s education, not those with ultra-deep pockets.
Those affected will include men and women in our Armed Forces—families who make use of the Continuity of Education Allowance. Some say that they are having to consider exiting military service as a consequence. How does the Minister respond to their appeals, and to professionals, including those working in education, policing and healthcare, who rely on the wraparound care provided by many independent schools; or to the single mother whose letter I sent to the Minister, and for whom independent schooling is the only way she can maintain her employment?
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, what about the impact on children with special needs or mental illness? The noble Lord gave a figure which I had not heard before that as many as 90,000 people will be affected by this. They will have chosen an independent school because of its particular expertise or focus on those children.
Finally, introducing this tax midway through the school year, on accelerated timeframes, will adversely affect children, who may struggle to integrate into new schools, with some forced to change curriculum, exam boards or subjects. Top of our concern, and at the heart of this policy, must be the impact on children. It clearly is not. This taxation is punitive, unjust and unfair, may be in breach of the ECHR, and will worsen educational inequalities. For all those reasons, I hope the Government will think again.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the Government’s intention to levy value added tax in this area was a manifesto commitment at the general election. The Government entertain a well-evidenced belief that parents purchase an economic and social benefit for their children’s future through private schooling. Whatever the experience any of your Lordships have had of such schooling, the undoubted premium placed on forming character or the excellence in pastoral care that some of these schools exhibit, the Government nevertheless have a mandate for change. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, underlined the pressing need for more teachers in our state schools.
However, who will and who will not be affected by this change is a worthy subject of debate. I am happy to say that both the boys’ and girls’ choirs at Southwark Cathedral are almost entirely drawn from state schools, and are consequently unaffected by the VAT change. Furthermore, a number of schools in my diocese offering provision for special educational needs and disabilities have their places funded by the local authorities. But there are cathedral and choir schools, and private schools, with provision for special educational needs that will be severely affected by the change that the Government intend. Many of these are small schools, and therefore the impact will be disproportionately severe.
The briefing provided by the House of Lords Library refers to some 20% of pupils in this sector receiving provision for SEND, which is of undoubted public benefit, but of these, only 6.9% have an education, health and care plan. This suggests that there is a significant element of special needs provision that is currently covered by private funding, and which cannot be absorbed by local education authority budgets if private places become unaffordable. Furthermore, if some small and medium-sized schools that provide SEND then become unviable, the general SEND capacity in the country, already overstretched, becomes yet smaller. A question, therefore, needs to be asked—and I ask it of the Minister—as to the appropriateness of removing the exemption at such short notice in January 2025, as other noble Peers have already said, with little time to adjust budgets.
Finally, there is the distinctive yet gloriously diverse world of cathedral and choir schools, which continue to safeguard and feed the English choral tradition. They are intimately bound up with their localities, drawing choristers from a wide social background, and have a very significant impact on the choral and musical life of this nation. I will cite some detail from one of them: a 100% bursary fee remission for local children who are very talented musically but whose parents cannot afford any fees, with numerous other pupils who are in receipt of 75% or more remission—the focus now being on remitting fees, rather than on awarding scholarships, to increase social inclusion.
I am a grammar school boy and I could not sing the “Eton Boating Song” if you paid me, yet I am deeply concerned about the adverse and unintended consequences which this manifesto commitment will have unless it is applied with much greater sensitivity—and possibly also phased in—affecting, as this does, the enormous variety of private school provision, about which we have heard and which is committed to public benefit.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing this debate. No one doubts the strength of his feeling on the issue. I suspect that much of his speech overrated the problems that the private sector will face, and my view is that it will survive, but he quite rightly raised a number of practical issues towards the end of his speech which I am sure my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will address in her reply. I take the opportunity to welcome her to her place.
I speak as a parent but also as someone who had experience running a public education service, and that drives my view of the necessity for this measure. Of course, the actual discussion will take place when we get the finance Bill, when we will doubtless have this debate again, but it is entirely appropriate that we should discuss it now.
I want to stress that VAT is a tax—no surprise there, but there is a big debate within the public expenditure discussions about the appropriate balance between income taxes and expenditure taxes. There are those who believe that there should be a greater reliance on expenditure taxes. That is an issue, but it means that they are both providing the same function; they are both providing public revenue to provide public services. It is worth stressing that taxes are paid not as a fee for a service but as an individual commitment to society as a whole. It is no more reasonable for those who choose to spend their money on sending their children to private school to have a VAT rebate than for people to expect to get an income tax rebate.
The basic fact about this proposal is that it was in the manifesto. It was not hidden or avoided during the election campaign, and this party was elected with a commitment to implement it. Practical issues were raised, and I hope my noble friend will address them.
I have taken the opportunity to read all the submissions that were sent to me. There was a large number and I cannot claim to have read every last one or through each one entirely—there was a certain amount of copying and pasting—but I got a sense of the expressions of concern that were being made, almost entirely by parents. The issues on which I hope my noble friend will be able to provide some comfort are, first of all, children with special needs and, possibly to a lesser extent, military families.
I want to conclude with a point that makes me angry—so far none of the speakers against this proposal has made the fatal mistake of making this point—and that is the idea that parents who choose to send their children to private school care more about their children than those of us who choose to send our children to state schools. The last Prime Minister made that classic mistake, in answer to Questions in the House of Commons, so noble Lords should not dismiss it. I hope no speaker in this debate will give that idea a scintilla of justification.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lexden for his determination to enable us to debate this issue.
The draft Bill which has been published is, to me, a blunt instrument. It treats the sector as a homogenous whole, so causing unintended consequences that implementing the policy in the middle of the school year will not enable us to unravel, let alone resolve. Time is of the essence, not least the limited time that we have to speak today, so I would like to request that the Minister convenes a round table to explore with interested parties the unintended consequences of the current draft legislation in greater depth.
I declare my interest as a former pupil of a specialist vocational performing arts school. I also have a child at a fee-paying independent day school in Scotland and a sister who is a teacher at another.
In the King’s Speech debate, I highlighted my worries about the impact on SEND children. Others have expanded on this, and I support them wholeheartedly. The Local Government Association has called for SEND provision to be reformed; I trust that we can explore this on another day with a little more time.
The first sentence of the Treasury’s technical note published in July states:
“The government is committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity”.
For our performing arts sector, and the schools which provide highly specialist training in music and dance, even the prospect of a VAT levy has created a barrier to opportunities. The schools that deliver training for the Music and Dance Scheme are currently able to offer places on assessment of talent, not ability to pay. This will not be the case if MDS schools have to levy VAT on any part of their fees. I urge the Government to work with the heads of MDS schools to explore the case for their exemption.
Question 5 of the current Treasury consultation asks:
“Does this approach achieve the intended policy aims across all four UK nations?”
I argue that it does not. The education landscape in Scotland is different. We have no academy schools. We have a different curriculum, which in some schools can force children to limit their choices to six subjects at age 14. Thanks to devolution, unlike in England, the Government cannot control how any money raised would be spent in Scotland. That would be a decision for the Scottish Government. There is no guarantee that it would be spent on education. Given the current state of the Scottish Government’s finances, it is likely to be repurposed, like many other programmes, such as the provision of digital devices to pupils. In Scotland, independent schools have been subject to more scrutiny by the Scottish Charity Regulator than any other part of the sector, with regular reviews to ensure that they meet the “charity test”, a process which does not happen south of the border.
The Government’s policy on VAT was announced in the middle of the Scottish school holidays. The allocation of places happens in April each year, but with one in three secondary schools operating at over 90% capacity, there is no space in the Scottish state sector to accommodate even a small proportion of the pupils who may need to move. Schools and families have not had time to prepare. With the changes being introduced midway through the academic year, the disruption for all will be significant. Already, two independent schools in Scotland have closed. I urge the Government to pause the implementation of this policy until the beginning of the 2025 school year and to use that time to explore with us the many complex issues raised today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am an associate of the Girls’ Day School Trust. I am grateful for the many sacrifices my parents made to allow me to go to Wimbledon High School after I failed my 11-plus pretty badly. I have been the governor of Howell’s School in Llandaff, a Girls’ Day School Trust school.
We should not be pitching one sector against another, but we must realistically acknowledge the unintended consequences of the VAT proposals and the speed with which they are being introduced. Howell’s School, whose pupils come from all walks of life, estimates that 11% of families will no longer be able to afford the fees, causing disruption and distress to those forced to leave a school community where they are happy and established. Howell’s will no longer be able to provide bursaries that have tided children over when disaster struck, such as three siblings I knew well, who were suddenly left orphaned and completely destitute. Continuity of education at the school and care allowed them to achieve, against all odds.
When Ukrainian refugees arrived in Cardiff, the school welcomed eight students aged three to 17 into its community. Some spoke no English; many had experienced significant emotional trauma from leaving behind homes, friends, fathers, brothers and grandparents. All had individualised timetables with extra classroom support and access to a school counsellor.
English lessons were extended to the students’ accompanying mothers and grandmothers, who connected on cultural visits locally as they gradually integrated into the community. The school has, to date, waived £377,000 in fees and incurred an additional £57,000 in expenses to support these girls—and that support is ongoing. Only this week I had a letter from a disabled school leaver, who, with that school’s support, has achieved university entrance to study law. I really doubt that she would have done it without being at the school.
Around 10 % of the school’s applications for places come from children who have struggled in a maintained school because of bullying, anxiety and other mental health problems, a lack of support with additional learning needs, or other reasons. This is similar to figures from across the UK. Parents and grandparents desperate to keep their child going to school do without for the child to have a tailored approach to academic and well-being support, a reduced timetable, and a calm, quiet space of safety.
The fee-paying schools in Wales are integral to their local communities. They are smaller on average than those in England, and they estimate that between 10 % and 36% of pupils will have to move to state schools, suddenly putting pressure on the state sector, with between 3,700 and over 6,500 extra children, and requiring £35 million in pupil funding. Education is fully devolved, but VAT receipts are paid directly to the Treasury. Can the Minister clarify whether the whole of the predicted £1.7 billion revenue has already been allocated for England’s use, or whether it covers England and Wales, and other devolved nations? Can she confirm that funds needed to meet Welsh schools’ needs will come from the additional revenue raised and will include the Barnett uplifts?
I wonder whether the Minister will accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Alton, to refer this to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, particularly in relation to devolved nations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I have only four minutes so I will sum up my view of this policy in three words: wicked, stupid and cruel. I have spent the summer receiving emails from vast numbers of parents. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, told us he had not had time to read all of them. If he had done so, he would be heartbroken.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am not going to give way—he would not give way to me.
These are lone parents, single parents perhaps struggling with two jobs in order to pay. They are people who put themselves in danger to defend our country in the armed services. They are parents struggling with children with severe learning difficulties. Who in this Chamber can defend the idea of sending a child who suffers with autism to a completely different environment halfway through term? Anyone who knows anything about autism will know that that would be a cruel and disgraceful thing to do. That is the consequence of this policy.
The messages are coming from health workers, teachers and small businesses, people who are struggling to pay those bills. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place but he told me he was not going to listen to what I had to say because he has seen people turning up in their Range Rovers to schools. The people I am talking about do not have summer holidays and run old cars to scrimp and save to do their best for their child in their circumstances.
By the way, every single one of these parents is saving taxpayers money. For the noble Baroness to suggest that this was a tax break—it is not one unless you take the view that education should be taxed. What has happened to the Labour Party that set up the Workers’ Education Association and founded the Open University? The Labour Party was elected in 1997 on “Education, education, education” and has now become the party of “Taxation, taxation, taxation”.
I agree that state schools need more resources, but look at the impact that this is going to have on those schools half way through the school year. I guess Emily Thornberry did not get to be Foreign Secretary because she let the cat out of the bag. She said, “It’s fine: if we have larger classes, we have larger classes”. “Let them eat cake”—she did not add. One in four children in Edinburgh go to independent schools. How on earth will state schools be able to cope with people who are no longer able to pay the cost?
I confess that I have not always been a huge fan of the ECHR, but I hope that those people with the resources will put their hands in their pockets and help my noble friend Lord Lexden and others to take this Government to court over this issue, and that the Government will realise that their time is nigh. As for the idea that this will save money—the Government have come up with at least three figures, all reducing in number—they need to read the wonderful analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on their own Benches, as to how it will end up costing more than it will save.
I have a suggestion to make to the Government. I know they have made a silly manifesto commitment, and I know they feel that they have to do something, but they should at least take some time and not do this half way through the school year. If that is what they are determined to do, they could perhaps meet their requirement to put VAT at 5% rather than 20%, as we do on heating charges, and phase it in over a reasonable period of time. I fear that this is an ideologically driven policy of the kind that the Prime Minister showed during the election, when he was asked, “If one of your family were desperately ill, would you ever use private healthcare?” and he said no. We do not want that kind of politics in this country.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the disparity of outcomes between private and state school pupils is well evidenced, and I welcome the commitment to equalise opportunities by rebalancing investment, but I hope Ministers will heed calls for more nuance in how proposed changes are applied.
As we have heard, “private schools” is a catch-all term, encompassing both schools paid for by choice and schools providing specialist education for pupils whose needs cannot be met in the state sector. I share concerns already expressed in relation to special educational needs, but I will use my time to expand on the concerns that the draft legislation inadvertently captures a small number of schools providing education for another group of children whose needs cannot be met by the state sector—by which I mean schools providing world-class music and dance vocational training to exceptionally talented children, regardless of background or ability to pay.
Successive Governments since the 1970s have recognised that if gifted dancers and musicians are to achieve their potential, they need a level and intensity of training that is impossible to achieve within the structure of a standard curriculum. In 1973, the Yehudi Menuhin and Royal Ballet Schools became direct grant aided, with means-tested DfE support for talented children from low-income families.
I declare an interest here, as I was one of those children. I joined the Royal Ballet School in 1974. The fees were well beyond my parents’ means, but they had no choice, because professional ballet training must start young if a dancer is going to compete in a global marketplace. It takes 10 years of daily practice under expert tuition to achieve the flexibility, speed and strength that characterise world-class performance, and those 10 years must take place before puberty sets in.
DfE’s music and dance scheme was established in 1981 as the successor to direct grant aid. The nine designated schools in England and Scotland have little in common with typical private schools. They recruit on talent first, and the majority of parents would not, in other circumstances, choose private education. At non-specialist private schools, around 7% of students receive a bursary or means-tested support. At music and dance scheme schools, it is 90%. The schools are costly to run, requiring specialist, world-class teachers, equipment, studios and theatre spaces, but there is no wealthy parent body, no large endowments and no eligibility for government building maintenance grants.
Earlier this year, the now Prime Minister spoke of the country’s
“huge talent … waiting to be unlocked”,
promising that people from every background and every region would have the opportunities they deserve. The Music and Dance Scheme is pivotal to this ambition, removing barriers to entry and allowing children from diverse backgrounds to dream of a career at the highest level. But 12 years of funding freeze mean the schools are already operating at full stretch. Further financial pressure will impact on quality of training, reduce diversity in the student body and severely impact the UK’s ability to produce the home-grown, world-class talent for which it is renowned.
This legislation aims to break down barriers to opportunity, but including these specialist schools in its scope will have the opposite effect. Prodigiously gifted children with the potential to become world-class artists need specialist education from a very early age, education that will never be possible in the standard curriculum. Raising barriers to entry will mean that only the most advantaged children will be able to access the training fundamental to career success. I would not have become a ballet dancer.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, in asking the Minister: will she convene a round table with interested parties and experts to explore how this legislation can avoid irreparably damaging the schools that underpin the UK’s success on the world stage?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, the register carries my declarations that I am chair of governors at Brighton College, a large and successful independent school—which is obviously in Brighton. I was previously chair of governors at my old school, Abingdon, which when I and my brother were there was a direct grant school, a status that was abolished by the Labour Government in the 1970s. It occurs to me to wonder why successive Labour Governments have been more associated with destroying categories of schools—first the grammar schools and direct grant schools and now, in all likelihood, some proportion of the independent sector—rather than creating schools, which would be more natural for a party which, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested, claimed to be for “Education, education, education”.
Of course, this was a manifesto commitment, and the Government will rely on that. I remember being told when I was in government that relying on the manifesto commitment is the last refuge of the scoundrel; it is there but it did not have to be done this way. The precipitate haste with which this has been pursued and the lack of any kind of impact assessment when the effects are manifestly clear just from the speeches being made in this Chamber today—I particularly pick out the powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, based on deep knowledge and deep passion on the effects of it—mean that it is important that the effects should be understood. It is assumed that there will be a cash dividend from this but that is by no means clear. You would think that a Government who claim to be committed to the writ of the Office of Budget Responsibility might want to hear what it has to say about this before progressing at this kind of speed.
I want to say a word about some of the other things that the independent sector contributes to the benefit of society. Brighton College was responsible for establishing the London Academy of Excellence in Stratford in Newham, providing an excellent sixth-form education for some of the most disadvantaged children in that very disadvantaged borough. It now ranks among the top 10 schools of all kinds for A-level outcomes this year. The percentage of LAE students eligible for free school meals is more than five times higher than any other school in that top 10.
The LAE was founded by the Brighton College headmaster, Richard Cairns, who has led it from being a middle-ranking school to absolutely top of the tree in just 18 years, and a Brighton College governor. It receives a cash donation from the Brighton College community, and five Brighton College governors serve on various committees there. It would not have happened without Brighton College, and large numbers of bright, gifted children from disadvantaged backgrounds have benefited from it.
Brighton College has offered 24 refugees from Ukraine places with 120% scholarships. It also offers Opening Doors scholarships to disadvantaged children from local families—I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Soames here as we both had children going through Brighton College and he now serves as president of the college—and many of those children have secured places at top universities.
Finally, I want to say a quick word about the value of education as an export. The Government do not quite understand the prestige and the cachet that attach to British education around the world, both in attracting students from overseas to schools here and in the growing number of UK schools that operate around the world, particularly in Asia. There is a hard-currency benefit to that in terms of cash coming into the country, and there are softer benefits of great value from the lifelong networks that these young people develop and the bonds of affection that flow from them.
I can see that this must have felt like a free hit at the time, but it is not turning out that way. I advise the Government to think again.